Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-11T18:20:21Z

Saxplayer: /* Origins */

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-11T17:45:41Z

Saxplayer:

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-11T17:42:00Z

Saxplayer:

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|accountability
|1794
|
|-
|affirmative action
|1935
|
|-
|American Dream
|1911
|
|-
|bailout
|1930
|
|-
|bureaucracy
|1818
|
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|conservative
|1384
|
|-
|deregulation
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|deterrence
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|efficiency
|1593
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|elitism
|1950
|
|-
|entitlement
|1630
|
|-
|entropy
|1868
|
|-
|filibuster
|1851
|
|-
|free enterprise
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine [[charity]] is the best approach;
|-
|grade inflation
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|grassroots
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1850
|
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|me-too
|1881
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|milquetoast
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|phonics
|1684
|
|-
|politically correct
|1793
|1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not *politically correct
|-
|potential
|1398
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|pro-life
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|radar
|1940
|Acronym of "Radio Detection and Ranging"; inclusion here being challenged on talk page
|-
|responsibility
|1787
1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|
|-
|scientism
|1877
|fool-hardy faith in the methods of science
|-
|self-defense
|1651
|
|-
|self-discipline
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|the second most recent entry; a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Developed ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Developed Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|
|
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|
|
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism has been its philosophical opposite, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|second-generation atheist
|
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|
|This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]]
|-
|term limits
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet?
|}

== New liberal words ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|atheist
|1571
|
|-
|"Big Bang"
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|communism
|1840
|
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|enlightenment
|1669
|
|-
|environmentalism
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|fundamentalism
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|feminism
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|humanism
|1832
|
|-
|imperialism
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|isolationism
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|politically correct
|1936
|According to some sources, the term originally comes from Chairman Mao
|-
|pro-choice
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|progressivism
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] without logical meaning
|-
|Racism
|
|If you do not support Barack Obama, you are guilty of..........
|-
|sexism
|1968
|
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|unitarian
|1687
|
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Franken Syndrome

2009-01-08T18:22:33Z

Saxplayer:

Interestingly, there is a real disease called [http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/GARD/Disease.aspx?PageID=4&diseaseID=1315 Christian Demyer Franken syndrome].--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I was under the impression that any American citizen who was old enough was qualified for public office, provided he got enough votes.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:19, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I looked and I couldn't find any reference to this term anywhere (some references were made to Al Franken syndrome, but they all were one-offs that referred to other characteristics). It doesn't appear to be very notable. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 14:28, 4 January 2009 (EST)

What on earth is this article - either we are trying to make an encyclopedia here, or we are just taking a series of cheap shots by making stuff up --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 15:15, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Why not Schwarzenegger syndrome or Reagan syndrome? Both jumped abruptly from entertainment to politics. [[User:Taollan|Taollan]] 17:00, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Taollan, the difference is obvious. Unlike liberals, Schwarzenegger and Reagan had a long standing interest in politics, and served the people of California and the United States. Franken (like other liberals) has no idea what he is doing. I suggest you open your mind and embrace conservative principals. It will greatly improve your mental health.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:37, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Saxplayer, Franken's work has had a political slant for more than 30 years, so saying he hasn't had a "long standing interest in politics" is simply inaccurate. Neither Scharzenegger nor Reagan held public office before being elected to Governor of California (a bit larger role than senator. And no, president of an entertainers' guild doesn't count). I would think truth and honesty is a conservative principal, is it not? Finally, Franken seems to know enough about politics to campaign to a virtual tie with Coleman. All of this is getting away from what I was trying to saw, however. This entry is non-encyclopedic cow manure. [[User:Taollan|Taollan]] 17:10, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Taollan, it would take a close minded liberal to equate a statesman of Ronald Reagan's stature to a second rate, not very funny "comedian" like AL Franken. You would be well served if you perused many of the articles on this site. Like many liberals, you are a bitter, angry person. Open your mind to conservative values and you will be much happier. --[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:22, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Franken Syndrome

2009-01-07T18:37:10Z

Saxplayer:

Franken Syndrome

2009-01-04T16:38:04Z

Saxplayer: New page: "Franken Syndrome" takes its name from comedian Al Franken. Franken Syndrome is the mistaken belief by liberals that success--however moderate--in another field qualifies them for public o...

"Franken Syndrome" takes its name from comedian Al Franken. Franken Syndrome is the mistaken belief by liberals that success--however moderate--in another field qualifies them for public office.

Trail of Tears

2008-12-04T19:20:02Z

Saxplayer: Removed mention of Andrew Jackson; he left office in 1837.

'''The Trail of Tears''' is the common name for the forced removal of [[Cherokee]] Indians from [[Tennessee]] to [[Indian Territory]] (later [[Oklahoma]]) in compliance with the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]]. 17,000 Indians were sent on a forced march of 1,200 miles (some made the journey by boat) Between 2,000 and 10,000 [[Native American|Indian]]s died on the trip, due to disease, malnutrition, and fatigue. The Trail of Tears became a national historical site in 1987.<ref>[http://www.powersource.com/cocinc/history/trail.htm Trail of Tears]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia]]
*[[Indian Removal Act of 1830]]

[[category:Native Americans]]
[[category:United States History]]

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-12T23:28:58Z

Saxplayer:

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]].

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are
[[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref>
[[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref>
[[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>,
[[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref>
and
[[J. Edgar Hoover]].<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that [[Robin Hood]] was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, in their ongoing efforts to smear [[Christianity]], claim that the Apostle Paul, and Saint Augustine were gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref> <ref>[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]</ref>

A minister of the [[United Methodist Church]] has even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim [[Horatio Alger]], the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.<ref>[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]</ref>

In their ongoing efforts to slander the Catholic Church, gay activists have claim that Popes Benedict IX, John XXII, Julius III, Paul VI, Pius XII, and Sixtus IV were all homosexuals. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

Gay activists have also smeared the memory of a hero the American Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette, asserting that he was gay. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

Homosexuals falsely claim that President James Buchanan was gay [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Talk:Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T21:59:12Z

Saxplayer: /* But but but */

I have to argue that Alexander at the minimum engaged in long term homosexual relations. This was not uncommon in the greek culture of his day. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 18:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:I had occasion to reread Xenophon's ''The Persian Expedition'' recently. Some of the Greeks had their boys along with them. That isn't revisionism...it's primary source. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::But that does not mean they had them along for sexual purposes, as gay liberals claim.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 20:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::I am not going to go through and look for it, but the context was certainly sexual. It was a 1940's translation...Rex Warner...and I remember the class sniggering about it in the late fifties when it was read for our curriculum.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::I've just thought...it seems ironic - or appropriate - that I have just been getting rid of the red links on [[Edward II]]. Including [[Berkeley Castle]].[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)

''not supported with any citations see conservapedia commandments.'' Quite right. Do you want cites that claim the individual was gay, or cites that claim that they aren't, or one of each, or what? What would be the best way to proceed? I think the article needs examples.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:The article has examples: Jesus, Paul, Robin Hood. The attempt before Conservative's edit to paint ASchlafly as a homosexual is just what a liberal considered humor, and I think you're unlikely to find any citations for it. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 22:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::Correction: I misread. Apparently, it was a different Schlafly, but I'm sure the same applies: this was just a liberal smear that would indicate that anyone was accusing any Schlafly of perversion, even though the intent was that John was not homosexual. Backhanded smears are common [[liberal style]].
::Even if I am wrong, it's just more evidence that liberals love to accuse prominent conservatives of homosexuality, especially if they share a name or lineage with other prominent conservatives like [[Aschlafly]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:::You are right BHarlan, that is why I started this article. Homosexual activists try to appropriate our history by blithely making these outrageous claims that "so and so was gay" with no evidence. This article is designed to highlight, and counter, their ridiculous assertions.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 07:32, 11 November 2008 (EST)

It's possible you started this article as a parody. I removed the Liberace reference.

We may need an article on famous closet gays who falsely denied their homosexuality. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:38, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Fred Mercury was certainly gay, I don't understand his inclusion in this. I thought John Schlafly was openly gay, but I don't think he should be included in the list, for obvious reasons, anyway. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 12:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Smear, smear, smear ==

There are three claims in the article that the purpose of claiming various figures are gay is to smear various groups of people, but this doesn't hold water. First of all, some conservatives think that being called a homosexual is a smear, but certainly gays wouldn't think that, right? So while you might think it is a smear, it is not an "attempt to smear". Second of all, even if it ''were'' their intent, there's not been presented any evidence to this fact. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== But but but ==

I was going to put this along with my above comment, but I think I will keep them separated for clarity. Every claim of "being gay" has a reference of someone calling that person gay, but none of them have references that show that these people were not, in fact, gay. In other words, it's not HHR to call a spade a spade, so in order to claim HHR we need to show that these people were not gay. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:39, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:I was rather puzzled by the presence of [[Freddie Mercury]], a noted pervert, who died of AIDS, on that list. I suspected that Mercury's name might have been added by a vandal, but I wasn't sure. —[[User:AshleyS|Asphalt P. Stanky]] 16:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)
::With this article, it can be hard to tell. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:::My intent when I created this article was to point out that homosexual activists falsely claim that certain historical figures were gay, when they were not. Liberace and Freddie Mercury were in fact gay, so they should not be in this article, at least that is the way I see it.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:59, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T20:19:31Z

Saxplayer:

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]]. Their purpose in this, presumably, is to argue that if admirable men of the past were homosexual, then homosexuality can't be bad.
This is like arguing that since we all admire [[Martin Luther King]] (who committed adultery),<ref>Dr. King’s right-hand man, Rev. [[Ralph Abernathy]], in his 1989 autobiography ''And the Walls Came Tumbling Down'' revealed Dr. King’s penchant for group sex [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A9925B2C-6C9C-4E58-95D2-54DC64BEB685] </ref>
then [[adultery]] isn't bad.

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are
[[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref>
[[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref>
[[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>,
[[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref>
and
[[J. Edgar Hoover]].<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that [[Robin Hood]] was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, in their ongoing efforts to smear [[Christianity]], claim that the Apostle Paul, and Saint Augustine were gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref> <ref>[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]</ref>

A minister of the [[United Methodist Church]] has even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim [[Horatio Alger]], the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.<ref>[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]</ref>

In their ongoing efforts to slander the Catholic Church, gay activists have claim that Popes Benedict IX, John XXII, Julius III, Paul VI, Pius XII, and Sixtus IV were all homosexuals. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

Gay activists have also smeared the memory of a hero the American Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette, asserting that he was gay. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T20:16:55Z

Saxplayer:

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]]. Their purpose in this, presumably, is to argue that if admirable men of the past were homosexual, then homosexuality can't be bad.
This is like arguing that since we all admire [[Martin Luther King]] (who committed adultery),<ref>Dr. King’s right-hand man, Rev. [[Ralph Abernathy]], in his 1989 autobiography ''And the Walls Came Tumbling Down'' revealed Dr. King’s penchant for group sex [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A9925B2C-6C9C-4E58-95D2-54DC64BEB685] </ref>
then [[adultery]] isn't bad.

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are
[[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref>
[[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref>
[[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>,
[[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref>
and
[[J. Edgar Hoover]].<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that [[Robin Hood]] was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, in their ongoing efforts to smear [[Christianity]], claim that the Apostle Paul, and Saint Augustine were gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref> <ref>[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]</ref>

A minister of the [[United Methodist Church]] has even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim [[Horatio Alger]], the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.<ref>[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]</ref>

In their ongoing efforts to slander the Catholic Church, gay activists have claim that Popes Benedict IX, John XXII, Julius III, Paul VI, Pius XII, and Sixtus IV were all homosexuals. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T13:57:39Z

Saxplayer:

[[Image:Liberace.jpg|thumb|right|Valentino Liberace, a victim of homosexual historical revisionist conspiracies.]]

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]]. Their purpose in this, presumably, is to argue that if admirable men of the past were homosexual, then homosexuality can't be bad.

This is like arguing that since we all admire [[Martin Luther King]] (who committed adultery),<ref>Dr. King’s right-hand man, Rev. [[Ralph Abernathy]], in his 1989 autobiography ''And the Walls Came Tumbling Down'' revealed Dr. King’s penchant for group sex [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A9925B2C-6C9C-4E58-95D2-54DC64BEB685] </ref>
then [[adultery]] isn't bad.

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are
[[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref>
[[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref>
[[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>,
[[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref>
[[J. Edgar Hoover]]<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref> and
[[Liberace]].<ref>[http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/biography/Liberace.html]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that Robin Hood was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, in their ongoing efforts to smear Christianity, claim that the Apostle Paul, and Saint Augustine wer gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref>. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

Atheist scholars have even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim Horatio Alger, the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Talk:Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T12:32:51Z

Saxplayer:

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T12:27:26Z

Saxplayer:

[[Image:Liberace.jpg|thumb|right|Valentino Liberace, a victim of homosexual historical revisionist conspiracies.]]

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]]. Their purpose in this, presumably, is to argue that if admirable men of the past were homosexual, then homosexuality can't be bad.

This is like arguing that since we all admire [[Martin Luther King]] (who committed adultery),<ref>Dr. King’s right-hand man, Rev. [[Ralph Abernathy]], in his 1989 autobiography ''And the Walls Came Tumbling Down'' revealed Dr. King’s penchant for group sex [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A9925B2C-6C9C-4E58-95D2-54DC64BEB685] </ref>
then [[adultery]] isn't bad.

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are
[[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref>
[[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref>
[[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref>
[[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>,
[[J. Edgar Hoover]]<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref> and
[[Liberace]].<ref>[http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/biography/Liberace.html]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that Robin Hood was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, in their ongoing efforts to smear Christianity, claim that the Apostle Paul, and Saint Augustine wer gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref>. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

Some scholars have even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim Horatio Alger, the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T12:26:50Z

Saxplayer:

[[Image:Liberace.jpg|thumb|right|Valentino Liberace, a victim of homosexual historical revisionist conspiracies.]]

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]]. Their purpose in this, presumably, is to argue that if admirable men of the past were homosexual, then homosexuality can't be bad.

This is like arguing that since we all admire [[Martin Luther King]] (who committed adultery),<ref>Dr. King’s right-hand man, Rev. [[Ralph Abernathy]], in his 1989 autobiography ''And the Walls Came Tumbling Down'' revealed Dr. King’s penchant for group sex [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A9925B2C-6C9C-4E58-95D2-54DC64BEB685] </ref>
then [[adultery]] isn't bad.

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are
[[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref>
[[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref>
[[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref>
[[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>,
[[J. Edgar Hoover]]<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref> and
[[Liberace]].<ref>[http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/biography/Liberace.html]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that Robin Hood was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, in their ongoing efforts to smear Christianity, claim the Apostle Paul, and that Saint Augustine was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref>. [http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

Some scholars have even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim Horatio Alger, the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T12:22:52Z

Saxplayer:

[[Image:Liberace.jpg|thumb|right|Valentino Liberace, a victim of homosexual historical revisionist conspiracies.]]

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]]. Their purpose in this, presumably, is to argue that if admirable men of the past were homosexual, then homosexuality can't be bad.

This is like arguing that since we all admire [[Martin Luther King]] (who committed adultery), then [[adultery]] isn't bad.

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are [[Abraham Lincoln]],<ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-02-17]</ref> [[Freddie Mercury]],<ref>[http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/5025/GayThing.html]</ref> [[John Schlafly]],<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925575]</ref> [[Father Michael Judge]] (FDNY Chaplain and 9/11 victim)<ref>[http://www.giftofireland.com/FatherMichaelJudge.htm]</ref>, [[J. Edgar Hoover]]<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v53/ai_14088664]</ref> and [[Liberace]].<ref>[http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/biography/Liberace.html]</ref>

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that Robin Hood was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]</ref>

Gay activists, obviously trying to provoke Christians, claim the Apostle Paul was gay.<ref>[http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]</ref>

Some scholars have even suggested that [[Jesus Christ]] might have been homosexual.<ref>[http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm]</ref>

In an effort to smear the American tradition of hard work and self reliance, gay activists claim Horatio Alger, the author of books that emphasized any one could make it in America, such as "Ragged Dick," was gay.[http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml]

==References==

<references/>

{{homosexualityb}}

[[category:Homosexuality]][[category:deceit]]

Talk:Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T01:32:11Z

Saxplayer:

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T01:30:15Z

Saxplayer:

[[Image:Railsplitter.jpg|thumb|left|The young Abraham Lincoln, depicted by an anonymous artist.]]
[[Image:Liberace.jpg|thumb|right|Valentino Liberace, another victim of homosexual historical revisionist conspiracies.]]

'''Homosexual Historical Revisionism''' is the practice by [[homosexuals]] of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were [[gay]].

Among the people they have claimed to be gay are [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Liberace]].

British liberals are now making the outlandish claim that Robin Hood was gay [http://www.gayheroes.com/robin.htm]

Gay activists, obviously trying to provoke Christians, claim the Apostle Paul was gay [http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm]

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-11T01:28:32Z

Saxplayer:

Homosexual Historical Revisionism

2008-11-10T22:47:26Z

Saxplayer: A start. Will add more soon!

Homosexual Historical Revisionism is the practice by Homosexuals of falsely claiming that famous people in the past were gay.
Among the people they have claimed to be gay are Alexander the Great and Abraham Lincoln.

Professor values

2008-10-30T18:17:43Z

Saxplayer: /* Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior */

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of [[professor]]s, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in [[Hollywood]] and the entertainment industry.

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],{{fact}} [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]),<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref> [[liberаl]] beliefs,{{fact}} [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" /> One study in 2008 found that "[[Texas]] university professors overwhelmingly favor
[[Democratic]] candidates in their campaign contributions."<ref>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5753471.html</ref>

Professors sometimes engage in wrongdoing while completing research. "About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected. ... 22 percent was by a professor or senior scientist."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aYFanemP24yM&refer=home</ref>

Faculty boards have been known to (on multiple occasions) block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:

* criticize the [[theory of evolution]]<ref>"As reported last week, two members of the department that denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University (ISU) have publicly admitted that Gonzalez's work on intelligent design played a role in his denial of tenure." [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_avoids_key_question.html]</ref>
* criticize [[feminism]]
* criticize [[abortion]]
* oppose the [[homosexual agenda]]
* criticize the [[liberal bias]] in [[academia]] itself

For example, professors at [[Washington University]] wore white armbands to protest an award of an honorary degree to [[Phyllis Schlafly]], a noted [[conservative]], in an act of political partisanship and utter unprofessionality.<ref>http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1279565&sectionID=1</ref> At the [[University of Chicago]], more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor [[conservative]]-leaning [[Nobel Prize]]-winning colleague [[Milton Friedman]].<ref>http://bourdaghs.com/blog.html?p=484</ref>

Politicians, especially [[liberal]] ones, are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Alexander Downer]]<ref>Downer is so pro-[[abortion]] that, as Foreign Minister of Australia, he "asked for a review of the government's ban on funding for abortion services in other countries."[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51731.php]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
*[[Tony Blair]]<ref>Blair was given a prestigious visiting lectureship.</ref>
*[[Tom Kean]]

==Crimes and Alleged Crimes by Professors==

* "A college professor accused of intercepting the e-mail of a student with whom he had an affair has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Stephan Grzeskowiak, 34, entered the plea .... A federal grand jury has indicted the former assistant professor of marketing ... on five counts of intercepting electronic communications and one count of computer fraud. He is accused of intercepting e-mails and instant messages on a computer used by the woman in May 2007."<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-professor-hacking,0,2077856.story</ref>

* "Vanderbilt University professor James J. Lang was arrested Friday evening in Fairview on a charge of receipt of child pornography."<ref>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/NEWS03/809130338/1017/news01</ref>

* Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Jeffrey Hunker, 51, "was charged with drunken driving three times in eight days" in August 2008 and, as a result, prosecutors asked the judge to imprison him. He had worked in the Clinton Administration and was driving his new BMW when stopped for the third time.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412801,00.html</ref>

* University of Iowa political science professor "Arthur H. Miller, 66, has been accused of demanding sexual favors from students in exchange for better grades .... He was arrested on four counts of bribery, a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison ...."<ref>http://iowaindependent.com/3876/ui-mired-in-another-sex-scandal</ref> After being released without bail, Miller then disappeared and police wasted thousands of dollars looking for him.<ref>http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/NEWS/27671323/0/FRONTPAGE</ref> Later his body was found in a park. "He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound."<ref>http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/NEWS/80826009/-1/LIFE04</ref>

* Arkansas Tech University chemistry professor Albert Snow, 33 years old, was sentenced to 10 years in jail "on a charge he stalked a person he believed was a teenage girl on the Internet." "Snow was arrested in January 2007 after showing up at a Russellville apartment complex where police say he expected to meet a 15-year-old girl."<ref>http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8803789</ref>

* At Northern Kentucky University, language and literature professor Sally Jacobsen incited some of her students to vandalize a pro-life display by Northern Right to Life, the campus pro-life group. Jacobsen herself also participated in the vandalism, which involved destroying rows of white crosses symbolizing the graves of aborted children. Jacobsen justified the vandalism as free speech, stating, "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to." Jacobsen was unrepentant until given the choice of facing criminal charges of theft, criminal mischief and criminal solicitation or apologizing. Jacobsen chose the latter and also paid Northern Right to Life for damage to the display. Jacobsen was suspended by the university and subsequently retired.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state3207.html</ref>

* College of New Jersey adjunct professor of engineering Bruce R. McKenna, 43, "surrendered to authorities after allegedly having sexually explicit conversations with an undercover officer posing as a teenage girl." He was "charged with six counts of attempting to endanger the welfare of a child, six counts of attempted sexual contact, sexual assault and attempted luring. ... Before McKenna was arrested, the situation escalated to the point where the professor was allegedly trying to meet with a 13-year-old girl."[http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/local/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1218698712309020.xml&coll=8]

* "A [[South Korea]]n court Monday sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university."<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy associate professor Peter Alan Rogers, 59, was arrested on Apr. 21, 2008 on a charge of possession of child pornography on a school laptop computer.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/04/24/professor_0425.html</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun" />

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 liters of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

* Philosophy professor [[Abimael Guzman]] of the National University of San Cristobal de Huamanga in [[Peru]] founded the bloodthirsty [[Shining Path]] organization, one of the most violent terrorist groups of recent decades.

* A childcare lecturer at Athlone Institute of Technology, [[Ireland]], was convicted of sexual assault while on a trip to [[Amsterdam]]. Despite this, AIT let him keep his job - until the crime was exposed in the local media.<ref>http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0415/ireland/mhojqlidcwid/</ref>

* A lecturer in sexual health at the University College of Medicine, [[Cardiff]], [[United Kingdom]] was fined £3,000 for child pornography offenses. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1497151.stm</ref>

* University of Tennessee Physics professor, J. Reece Roth has been found guilty of passing U.S. Air Force secrets to [[China]] and [[Iran]]. Jury concluded he was guilty on 18 counts of conspiracy, fraud and violating the Arms Export Control Act. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/professor_secrets/2008/09/03/127312.html Tenn. Professor Guilty of Passing Military Secrets] AP, September 3, 2008</ref>

==Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior==
*A Texas Southern University professor plagiarized his grant proposal [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6085039.html]

*The President of the University of Texas-Pan American is under investigation after allegations that she [[Plagiarism|plagiarized]] her 1974 dissertation <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jigNGLtg9PtFNelXVdVdNFVfb48wD943SDH03</ref>.

* An [[Iowa]] community college [[president]] resigned after publication of a photo that appeared to show him pouring beer into a young woman's [[mouth]]. But the [[school]]'s board of trustees approved a [[severance package]] that officials said was [[value]]d at about $400,000 plus benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413101,00.html</ref>

* A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, "is under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403781,00.html Kansas Professor in Trouble for Mooning Incident]

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

*Ward Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating his research and for plagiarizing the work of others.

*Richard Lenski of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research.

* When challenged to provide data, professors who support evolution evade the question [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog#Lead_author_won.27t_answer_simple.2C__basic_questions]

*Madonna Constantine, a Columbia University professor claimed she was the victim of racism in the fall of 2007 when a noose was found on her office door. Now she has been fired for plagiarizing the work of other professors and even her own students! [http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/plagiarism.professor/]

*Vulgar and viciously bigoted anti-religion (mainly Christianity) University of Minnesota Morris professor and blogger [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] recently raised the hackles of Catholics by stating his desire to desecrate a Holy Communion wafer (viewed by Catholics as the Body of Christ).<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref> The resultant outcry from Catholics resulted in the university removing all links to Myers' blog from their website.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref>

*3,200 educators, most of them [[professors]], have signed a letter supporting unrepentant domestic [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers]]. They claim Ayers bombing of the [[Pentagon]] and other [[government]] buildings, his direct involvement in at least three [[deaths]], were just "[[history]]." Notable signers include Professor Rashid Khalidi (No. 5), known for his call to destroy Israel and former professor Ward Churchill (No. 814), claiming the 9/11 victims were Nazis. George Leef, director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Raliegh, N.C., said, "History should be important to [[teachers]]." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/ More Than 3,000 Academics Sign Pro-Ayers Petition] Fox News, October 22, 2008</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

==Links==
[http://liberal-education.com Liberal-education.com] A user created list of professors with liberal bias, highlighting examples of liberal bias in the classroom.

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Professor values

2008-10-29T17:20:04Z

Saxplayer: /* Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior */

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of [[professor]]s, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in [[Hollywood]] and the entertainment industry.

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]),<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref> [[liberаl]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" /> One study in 2008 found that "[[Texas]] university professors overwhelmingly favor
[[Democratic]] candidates in their campaign contributions."<ref>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5753471.html</ref>

Professors sometimes engage in wrongdoing while completing research. "About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected. ... 22 percent was by a professor or senior scientist."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aYFanemP24yM&refer=home</ref>

Faculty boards have been known to (on multiple occasions) block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:

* criticize the [[theory of evolution]]<ref>"As reported last week, two members of the department that denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University (ISU) have publicly admitted that Gonzalez's work on intelligent design played a role in his denial of tenure." [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_avoids_key_question.html]</ref>
* criticize [[feminism]]
* criticize [[abortion]]
* oppose the [[homosexual agenda]]
* criticize the [[liberal bias]] in [[academia]] itself

For example, professors at [[Washington University]] wore white armbands to protest an award of an honorary degree to [[Phyllis Schlafly]], a noted [[conservative]], in an act of political partisanship and utter unprofessionality.<ref>http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1279565&sectionID=1</ref> At the [[University of Chicago]], more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor [[conservative]]-leaning [[Nobel Prize]]-winning colleague [[Milton Friedman]].<ref>http://bourdaghs.com/blog.html?p=484</ref>

Politicians, especially [[liberal]] ones, are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Alexander Downer]]<ref>Downer is so pro-[[abortion]] that, as Foreign Minister of Australia, he "asked for a review of the government's ban on funding for abortion services in other countries."[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51731.php]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
*[[Tony Blair]]<ref>Blair was given a prestigious visiting lectureship.</ref>
*[[Tom Kean]]

==Crimes and Alleged Crimes by Professors==

* "A college professor accused of intercepting the e-mail of a student with whom he had an affair has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Stephan Grzeskowiak, 34, entered the plea .... A federal grand jury has indicted the former assistant professor of marketing ... on five counts of intercepting electronic communications and one count of computer fraud. He is accused of intercepting e-mails and instant messages on a computer used by the woman in May 2007."<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-professor-hacking,0,2077856.story</ref>

* "Vanderbilt University professor James J. Lang was arrested Friday evening in Fairview on a charge of receipt of child pornography."<ref>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/NEWS03/809130338/1017/news01</ref>

* Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Jeffrey Hunker, 51, "was charged with drunken driving three times in eight days" in August 2008 and, as a result, prosecutors asked the judge to imprison him. He had worked in the Clinton Administration and was driving his new BMW when stopped for the third time.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412801,00.html</ref>

* University of Iowa political science professor "Arthur H. Miller, 66, has been accused of demanding sexual favors from students in exchange for better grades .... He was arrested on four counts of bribery, a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison ...."<ref>http://iowaindependent.com/3876/ui-mired-in-another-sex-scandal</ref> After being released without bail, Miller then disappeared and police wasted thousands of dollars looking for him.<ref>http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/NEWS/27671323/0/FRONTPAGE</ref> Later his body was found in a park. "He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound."<ref>http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/NEWS/80826009/-1/LIFE04</ref>

* Arkansas Tech University chemistry professor Albert Snow, 33 years old, was sentenced to 10 years in jail "on a charge he stalked a person he believed was a teenage girl on the Internet." "Snow was arrested in January 2007 after showing up at a Russellville apartment complex where police say he expected to meet a 15-year-old girl."<ref>http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8803789</ref>

* At Northern Kentucky University, language and literature professor Sally Jacobsen incited some of her students to vandalize a pro-life display by Northern Right to Life, the campus pro-life group. Jacobsen herself also participated in the vandalism, which involved destroying rows of white crosses symbolizing the graves of aborted children. Jacobsen justified the vandalism as free speech, stating, "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to." Jacobsen was unrepentant until given the choice of facing criminal charges of theft, criminal mischief and criminal solicitation or apologizing. Jacobsen chose the latter and also paid Northern Right to Life for damage to the display. Jacobsen was suspended by the university and subsequently retired.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state3207.html</ref>

* College of New Jersey adjunct professor of engineering Bruce R. McKenna, 43, "surrendered to authorities after allegedly having sexually explicit conversations with an undercover officer posing as a teenage girl." He was "charged with six counts of attempting to endanger the welfare of a child, six counts of attempted sexual contact, sexual assault and attempted luring. ... Before McKenna was arrested, the situation escalated to the point where the professor was allegedly trying to meet with a 13-year-old girl."[http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/local/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1218698712309020.xml&coll=8]

* "A [[South Korea]]n court Monday sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university."<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy associate professor Peter Alan Rogers, 59, was arrested on Apr. 21, 2008 on a charge of possession of child pornography on a school laptop computer.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/04/24/professor_0425.html</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun">

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 liters of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

* Philosophy professor [[Abimael Guzman]] of the National University of San Cristobal de Huamanga in [[Peru]] founded the bloodthirsty [[Shining Path]] organization, one of the most violent terrorist groups of recent decades.

* A childcare lecturer at Athlone Institute of Technology, [[Ireland]], was convicted of sexual assault while on a trip to [[Amsterdam]]. Despite this, AIT let him keep his job - until the crime was exposed in the local media.<ref>http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0415/ireland/mhojqlidcwid/</ref>

* A lecturer in sexual health at the University College of Medicine, [[Cardiff]], [[United Kingdom]] was fined £3,000 for child pornography offenses. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1497151.stm</ref>

* University of Tennessee Physics professor, J. Reece Roth has been found guilty of passing U.S. Air Force secrets to [[China]] and [[Iran]]. Jury concluded he was guilty on 18 counts of conspiracy, fraud and violating the Arms Export Control Act. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/professor_secrets/2008/09/03/127312.html Tenn. Professor Guilty of Passing Military Secrets] AP, September 3, 2008</ref>

==Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior==

*The President of the University of Texas-Pan American plagiarized her dissertation [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jigNGLtg9PtFNelXVdVdNFVfb48wD943SDH03].

* An [[Iowa]] community college [[president]] resigned after publication of a photo that appeared to show him pouring beer into a young woman's [[mouth]]. But the [[school]]'s board of trustees approved a [[severance package]] that officials said was [[value]]d at about $400,000 plus benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413101,00.html</ref>

* A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, "is under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403781,00.html Kansas Professor in Trouble for Mooning Incident]

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

*Ward Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating his research and for plagiarizing the work of others.

*Richard Lenski of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research.

* When challenged to provide data, professors who support evolution evade the question [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog#Lead_author_won.27t_answer_simple.2C__basic_questions]

*Madonna Constantine, a Columbia University professor claimed she was the victim of racism in the fall of 2007 when a noose was found on her office door. Now she has been fired for plagiarizing the work of other professors and even her own students! [http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/plagiarism.professor/]

*Vulgar and viciously bigoted anti-religion (mainly Christianity) University of Minnesota Morris professor and blogger [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] recently raised the hackles of Catholics by stating his desire to desecrate a Holy Communion wafer (viewed by Catholics as the Body of Christ).<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref> The resultant outcry from Catholics resulted in the university removing all links to Myers' blog from their website.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref>

*3,200 educators, most of them [[professors]], have signed a letter supporting unrepentant domestic [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers]]. They claim Ayers bombing of the [[Pentagon]] and other [[government]] buildings, his direct involvement in at least three [[deaths]], were just "[[history]]." Notable signers include Professor Rashid Khalidi (No. 5), known for his call to destroy Israel and former professor Ward Churchill (No. 814), claiming the 9/11 victims were Nazis. George Leef, director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Raliegh, N.C., said, "History should be important to [[teachers]]." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/ More Than 3,000 Academics Sign Pro-Ayers Petition] Fox News, October 22, 2008</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

==Links==
[http://liberal-education.com Liberal-education.com] A user created list of professors with liberal bias, highlighting examples of liberal bias in the classroom.

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Professor values

2008-10-29T17:18:59Z

Saxplayer: /* Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior */

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of [[professor]]s, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in [[Hollywood]] and the entertainment industry.

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles.<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate .[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref><ref> [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]],<ref>For example, the vast majority of philosophy professors are [[atheists]], even after an alleged uptick in [[faith]] [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]]),<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref> [[liberаl]] beliefs,<ref>"90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate." [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8]</ref> [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a Zogby poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" /> One study in 2008 found that "[[Texas]] university professors overwhelmingly favor
[[Democratic]] candidates in their campaign contributions."<ref>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5753471.html</ref>

Professors sometimes engage in wrongdoing while completing research. "About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected. ... 22 percent was by a professor or senior scientist."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aYFanemP24yM&refer=home</ref>

Faculty boards have been known to (on multiple occasions) block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:

* criticize the [[theory of evolution]]<ref>"As reported last week, two members of the department that denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University (ISU) have publicly admitted that Gonzalez's work on intelligent design played a role in his denial of tenure." [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_avoids_key_question.html]</ref>
* criticize [[feminism]]
* criticize [[abortion]]
* oppose the [[homosexual agenda]]
* criticize the [[liberal bias]] in [[academia]] itself

For example, professors at [[Washington University]] wore white armbands to protest an award of an honorary degree to [[Phyllis Schlafly]], a noted [[conservative]], in an act of political partisanship and utter unprofessionality.<ref>http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1279565&sectionID=1</ref> At the [[University of Chicago]], more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor [[conservative]]-leaning [[Nobel Prize]]-winning colleague [[Milton Friedman]].<ref>http://bourdaghs.com/blog.html?p=484</ref>

Politicians, especially [[liberal]] ones, are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Alexander Downer]]<ref>Downer is so pro-[[abortion]] that, as Foreign Minister of Australia, he "asked for a review of the government's ban on funding for abortion services in other countries."[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51731.php]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
*[[Tony Blair]]<ref>Blair was given a prestigious visiting lectureship.</ref>
*[[Tom Kean]]

==Crimes and Alleged Crimes by Professors==

* "A college professor accused of intercepting the e-mail of a student with whom he had an affair has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Stephan Grzeskowiak, 34, entered the plea .... A federal grand jury has indicted the former assistant professor of marketing ... on five counts of intercepting electronic communications and one count of computer fraud. He is accused of intercepting e-mails and instant messages on a computer used by the woman in May 2007."<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-professor-hacking,0,2077856.story</ref>

* "Vanderbilt University professor James J. Lang was arrested Friday evening in Fairview on a charge of receipt of child pornography."<ref>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/NEWS03/809130338/1017/news01</ref>

* Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Jeffrey Hunker, 51, "was charged with drunken driving three times in eight days" in August 2008 and, as a result, prosecutors asked the judge to imprison him. He had worked in the Clinton Administration and was driving his new BMW when stopped for the third time.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412801,00.html</ref>

* University of Iowa political science professor "Arthur H. Miller, 66, has been accused of demanding sexual favors from students in exchange for better grades .... He was arrested on four counts of bribery, a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison ...."<ref>http://iowaindependent.com/3876/ui-mired-in-another-sex-scandal</ref> After being released without bail, Miller then disappeared and police wasted thousands of dollars looking for him.<ref>http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/NEWS/27671323/0/FRONTPAGE</ref> Later his body was found in a park. "He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound."<ref>http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/NEWS/80826009/-1/LIFE04</ref>

* Arkansas Tech University chemistry professor Albert Snow, 33 years old, was sentenced to 10 years in jail "on a charge he stalked a person he believed was a teenage girl on the Internet." "Snow was arrested in January 2007 after showing up at a Russellville apartment complex where police say he expected to meet a 15-year-old girl."<ref>http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8803789</ref>

* At Northern Kentucky University, language and literature professor Sally Jacobsen incited some of her students to vandalize a pro-life display by Northern Right to Life, the campus pro-life group. Jacobsen herself also participated in the vandalism, which involved destroying rows of white crosses symbolizing the graves of aborted children. Jacobsen justified the vandalism as free speech, stating, "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to." Jacobsen was unrepentant until given the choice of facing criminal charges of theft, criminal mischief and criminal solicitation or apologizing. Jacobsen chose the latter and also paid Northern Right to Life for damage to the display. Jacobsen was suspended by the university and subsequently retired.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state3207.html</ref>

* College of New Jersey adjunct professor of engineering Bruce R. McKenna, 43, "surrendered to authorities after allegedly having sexually explicit conversations with an undercover officer posing as a teenage girl." He was "charged with six counts of attempting to endanger the welfare of a child, six counts of attempted sexual contact, sexual assault and attempted luring. ... Before McKenna was arrested, the situation escalated to the point where the professor was allegedly trying to meet with a 13-year-old girl."[http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/local/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1218698712309020.xml&coll=8]

* "A [[South Korea]]n court Monday sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university."<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy associate professor Peter Alan Rogers, 59, was arrested on Apr. 21, 2008 on a charge of possession of child pornography on a school laptop computer.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/04/24/professor_0425.html</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun">

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer," "plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months for plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 liters of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

* Philosophy professor [[Abimael Guzman]] of the National University of San Cristobal de Huamanga in [[Peru]] founded the bloodthirsty [[Shining Path]] organization, one of the most violent terrorist groups of recent decades.

* A childcare lecturer at Athlone Institute of Technology, [[Ireland]], was convicted of sexual assault while on a trip to [[Amsterdam]]. Despite this, AIT let him keep his job - until the crime was exposed in the local media.<ref>http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0415/ireland/mhojqlidcwid/</ref>

* A lecturer in sexual health at the University College of Medicine, [[Cardiff]], [[United Kingdom]] was fined £3,000 for child pornography offenses. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1497151.stm</ref>

* University of Tennessee Physics professor, J. Reece Roth has been found guilty of passing U.S. Air Force secrets to [[China]] and [[Iran]]. Jury concluded he was guilty on 18 counts of conspiracy, fraud and violating the Arms Export Control Act. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/professor_secrets/2008/09/03/127312.html Tenn. Professor Guilty of Passing Military Secrets] AP, September 3, 2008</ref>

==Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior==

*The President of the University of Texas-Pan American plagiarized portions of her dissertation [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jigNGLtg9PtFNelXVdVdNFVfb48wD943SDH03].

* An [[Iowa]] community college [[president]] resigned after publication of a photo that appeared to show him pouring beer into a young woman's [[mouth]]. But the [[school]]'s board of trustees approved a [[severance package]] that officials said was [[value]]d at about $400,000 plus benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413101,00.html</ref>

* A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, "is under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403781,00.html Kansas Professor in Trouble for Mooning Incident]

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

*Ward Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating his research and for plagiarizing the work of others.

*Richard Lenski of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research.

* When challenged to provide data, professors who support evolution evade the question [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog#Lead_author_won.27t_answer_simple.2C__basic_questions]

*Madonna Constantine, a Columbia University professor claimed she was the victim of racism in the fall of 2007 when a noose was found on her office door. Now she has been fired for plagiarizing the work of other professors and even her own students! [http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/plagiarism.professor/]

*Vulgar and viciously bigoted anti-religion (mainly Christianity) University of Minnesota Morris professor and blogger [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] recently raised the hackles of Catholics by stating his desire to desecrate a Holy Communion wafer (viewed by Catholics as the Body of Christ).<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref> The resultant outcry from Catholics resulted in the university removing all links to Myers' blog from their website.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref>

*3,200 educators, most of them [[professors]], have signed a letter supporting unrepentant domestic [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers]]. They claim Ayers bombing of the [[Pentagon]] and other [[government]] buildings, his direct involvement in at least three [[deaths]], were just "[[history]]." Notable signers include Professor Rashid Khalidi (No. 5), known for his call to destroy Israel and former professor Ward Churchill (No. 814), claiming the 9/11 victims were Nazis. George Leef, director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Raliegh, N.C., said, "History should be important to [[teachers]]." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/ More Than 3,000 Academics Sign Pro-Ayers Petition] Fox News, October 22, 2008</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

==Links==
[http://liberal-education.com Liberal-education.com] A user created list of professors with liberal bias, highlighting examples of liberal bias in the classroom.

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-25T20:30:38Z

Saxplayer: /* Berg Obama lawsuit */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the lives of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? None of those points give any real plausible reason to think he is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired Ghandi and that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I'm read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction written by the views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of them just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-23T01:21:01Z

Saxplayer: /* How low can you go? */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Colin Powell

2008-10-19T23:58:30Z

Saxplayer: /* Political views */

[[Image:Colin_Powell.jpg|right|200px]]
'''General Colin Luther Powell''', United States Army (Ret.) (born April 5, 1937) was the 65th [[United States]] [[Secretary of State]] (2001-05) under President [[George W. Bush]] and a liberal member of the [[Republican]] Party. He became the highest ranking African American government official in the history of the United States. As a General in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993).

==Military career==
While at City College Powell joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and later described it as one of the happiest experiences of his life: finding something he loved and could do well, he had "found himself." After graduating from City College in June 1958, he was granted a commission as an Army Second Lieutenant. Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and later served as a General. During his military career Powell received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal.

==Presidential appointments==
At the age of 49, Powell became President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. He retained his Army commission (he was a Lieutenant General at the time of his nomination) while serving as National Security Advisor. After his tenure, Powell was promoted to 4-star General under President [[George H.W. Bush]].

From 1989 to 1993, General Powell served as chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]], the highest [[military]] position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of [[Panama]] in 1989 to remove General [[Manuel Noriega]] from power in and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 [[Persian Gulf War]]. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, "the reluctant warrior". After the end of Persian Gulf War, Colin Powell outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the [[Powell Doctrine]]. the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Secretary of State Colin Powell, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, President George W. Bush talks with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager. ]] Later as Secretary of State in the Bush [[administration]], Powell was tremendously popular among the American people. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], Powell's job became of critical importance in managing America's relationships with foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the [[War on Terrorism]]. He spoke out in favor of the 2003 Invasion of [[Iraq]], saying that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

==Political views==
Colin Powell is a [[liberal]] or moderate Republican who is [[pro-choice]] regarding [[abortion]], supports affirmative action and "reasonable" gun control. Although Powell is against [[gay]] marriage, he supports and helped crafted the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the United States military. He has also been critical of the current policy in Iraq. In 2005, Powell telephoned two Senator's, [[Lincoln Chafee]] of [[Rhode Island]] and [[Chuck Hagel]] of [[Nebraska]] (also liberal Republicans) asking them to oppose the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. In September 2005, Powell criticized the government's response to [[Hurricane Katrina]]. Powell was mentioned as a potential running mate for [[John McCain]]<ref>http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/colin_powell.html</ref>, but said he was no longer interested in elective office. On 19 October 2008, he endorsed Barack Obama for President, saying that Obama was a "transformational figure coming into the world stage" [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/] and expressing disappointment in what he called the "negative tone" of McCain's campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of [[Sarah Palin]] as the Republican vice presidential nominee [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-presiden-1/]. Powell went on to criticize other Republicans for insisting that Obama is a Muslim stating ""I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the {Republican} Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7678788.stm]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 19:58, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Family and Personal Information==
Powell has been married to Alma Vivian Johnson since 1962. They have one child, a son, Michael (1963). The Powells are [[Episcopalians]]. One of Colin Powell's hobbies is restoring classic automobiles<ref>http://www.4driversonly.com/50226711/colin_powell_drives_a_66_volvo.php</ref>.

==External links==
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/powell-bio.html, WhiteHouse.gov biography]

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Powell, Colin}}

[[Category:Republican Party]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-23T21:56:55Z

Saxplayer: /* Muslim */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Willie Mays

2008-09-22T17:21:10Z

Saxplayer: New page: Willie Mays (born 1931) was a baseball player with the New York Giants (1951-1957), San Francisco Giants (1958-1972), and New York Mets (1972-1973)

Willie Mays (born 1931) was a baseball player with the New York Giants (1951-1957), San Francisco Giants (1958-1972), and New York Mets (1972-1973)

American History Lecture One

2008-09-11T18:02:47Z

Saxplayer: /* Pre-Columbian Period */

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This is likely to become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, comical mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, geniuses, treasure, inventions, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.

We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to take initiative in learning history and to avoid duplication in reading. All you need to read are the lectures, starting with this one. Later we may add a textbook if we find a good one.

The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling in a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much larger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, the Pilgrims agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In the name of God Amen."<ref>The Mayflower Compact is viewable here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm</ref>

Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was nearly 400 years ago.

We live at a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future of America as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping facts in perspective and understanding how they relate to each other
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in textbooks and the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.

For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point. Perhaps you enjoy mysteries; in that case, use our list of [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|Greatest Mysteries of American History]] to motivate you.

Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.

On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]]

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by Native Americans
* discovery, exploration, and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]]ian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* Gilded Age
* [[Imperialism]]
* [[World War I]]
* [[Roaring Twenties]], followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* [[World War II]]
* [[Cold War]]
** [[Korean War]]
** [[Vietnam War]]
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and [[terrorism]]

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions by time period is this:

:Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
:1790 to 1898 - 40%
:1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half of the SAT II exam focuses on the last century, and only about 18 questions (out of 90-95) are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. So do not find yourself spending too much time on one aspect of history.

== Why America? ==

Your common sense and imagination can help you master American history. Pause for a moment and imagine what would likely happen to a nice chunk of fertile land, possibly containing riches like gold, located between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Would some Europeans want to go there? Of course. Which ones would want to go there, and why?

One reason is to convert the natives to Christianity, just as homeschool families today often go on missionary trips to distant lands. Another reason is to search for gold and other riches. A third reason is to obtain freedom. Another reason is for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Some want to escape where they are. Others want to set up a new community, perhaps a new religious environment. Others hope to meet new people and make new friends, and engage in the trade of goods with the people. Another motivation is to learn from the new people, or have adventures and then write about them.

What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go to this land? There will be conflict: conflicts with the natives, conflicts with other European countries, and conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. But there will also be new opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions and for new systems of government.

Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.

Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, such as chopping down trees, working the farms, and constructing the buildings? There was almost no money to pay anyone for the work. Families might do some, but many of the families consisted of young children. Pretty soon slavery developed as a form of labor, particularly in less religious settlements. Another form of labor less objectionable than slavery was the use of [[indentured servants]]. They were workers who promised to work for free for seven (7) years in exchange for free transportation to the New World, free food and housing while there, and complete freedom (and maybe some land) after the end of the seven (7) years.

In learning history, it helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history well is the overall expansion of Christianity for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Their religious values told them slavery was wrong.

There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.

== Organizing History ==

From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would include only one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers in a cabinet where you might put your clothes. In the "cabinet" of presidents, each drawer is filled with issues and events that happened during each presidency.

But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-1760.

By the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterward.

Don't try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don't remember the 1608 date, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)

== Pre-Columbian Period ==
The first settlers in America were Native Americans, or American Indians. Their origin is not known. Most archeologists and anthropologists maintain they are descended from peoples who crossed the Bering Strait land bridge from Asia into North AMerica between 12,000 to 25,000 years ago. Many native peoples however, argue that they have always been here.

Some old mounds reflecting Indian settlements in America have been discovered, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref> The [[Cahokia Mounds]] in Southern Illinois (just east of [[St. Louis]]) reflect an Indian community dating back as early as A.D. 1000 or 1100.<ref>http://www.cahokiamounds.com/mystery_01.html</ref> That community practiced human sacrifice, as did the [[Aztecs]] and [[Mayans]] in [[Mesoamerica]] (Mexico and Central America) and the [[Incas]] in [[South America]] prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors.

Native Americans developed distinct cultures, often in response to the physical environment that they lived in. They were organized by tribes and some had very simple forms of government. There was the [[Iroquois Confederacy]] that united some Indians, but typically there was a lack of unity that led to their easy defeat by Europeans. The Indians did introduce [[tobacco]] and [[corn]] to Europeans, and they became widely popular back in Europe. Europeans also brought new things to the Indians, such as horses and guns.

Textbooks written after 1970 began claiming that around A.D. 1000 the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] established a small colony at [[Vinland]], where the present [[Newfoundland]] is (north of Maine). But there is little evidence that such a colony existed, and no explanation for what happened to it. It did not last long even if it did exist, and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

'''Debate: Did the Vikings settle in North America before Columbus?'''

'''Exam note''': there are no more than a few questions about the Pre-Columbian (prior to Christopher Columbus) period on any American history exam.

== Exploration (Columbian Period) ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Muslim attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold.

People in [[Ancient Greece]] knew that the world was round, and that it should be possible to reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. Ironically, it was the very knowledge of the Earth's circumference that deterred a westward passage - the distance to the Orient in that direction was beyond the open-water range of ships in that period. Steamships did not exist yet; these ships relied on sailing, using wind to reach their destination, and wind patterns did not always cooperate.

Thus, centuries passed before one man inspired by the Christian [[faith]] was determined to change the world of his time. By the young age of 10 the Italian [[Christopher Columbus]] was working at sea, already on his way to becoming a master navigator and mariner. He learned the patterns of the Atlantic trade winds, and their ability to carry sailing vessels across vast distances both eastward and westward before one's provisions would run out. With the charts he developed, he was certain he could reach Asia on a westbound route more efficiently than others could.

It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail West in order to find an easier way to reach the Far East, by sailing westward rather than going eastward from Europe to reach India and Japan. Columbus tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Portugal declined to support him, but Columbus persisted for ten more years.

In 1492 Spain drove out the last of the Muslims and re-established itself as a Christian nation, and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain granted Columbus's request for funding his voyage in that same year. Spain continues to honor Columbus Day just as the United States does.

Columbus was not only a devout Christian, but an enterprising capitalist. The contract he signed with the Spanish Monarchy, known as the Capitulations of Santa Fe, named him Admiral of the Atlantic Ocean, Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands discovered, and gave him one-tenth of the profit from all of the discovered lands (Spain later refused to honor the agreement, and Columbus never became wealthy). Having secured his funding, Columbus assembled his ships and crew and set out in August of 1492 to reach the Orient.

Columbus set sail in three ships. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ships, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement "La Navidad," meaning "The Nativity," and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote for the King and Queen of Spain in his Journal: "In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms."

But Columbus had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he had reached the Far East. So he called the natives "Indians". He left some men there but they were eventually killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.

Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That's why Brazilians speak Portuguese to this day.

The incredible genius of Columbus -- or Providence -- was demonstrated a year later on his second voyage across the Atlantic. Amid the vast ocean, Columbus was able to return to exactly the same location that he had reached on his first voyage on the island of [[Hispaniola]]. That is like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a football stadium. But Columbus's colony had not survived in his absence.

Columbus sailed on a total of three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died a failure. His ultimate dream of liberating Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted, was not realized. But what he did achieve was to open the New World to spreading Christianity and creating new wealth.

Columbus's efforts resulting in Spain acquiring [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe (now in New Mexico). Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.

Fifteen years after Columbus's maiden voyage, map-makers (cartographers) coined the named "America" for the New World in honor of another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. Between 1499 and 1502 he explored the east coast of South America, and was the first to recognize that the new land was a separate continent rather than part of Asia.

But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.

Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.

The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, calling the region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.

The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.

Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years, because North America didn't have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europeans wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.

There wasn't anything else of much value to Europe. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.

There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.

North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.

Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.

[[England]]'s first settlement of [[North America]] was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in [[Virginia]]. More than 100 families settled there, but within a few years they had all disappeared. It remains a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows the real reason for the disappearance of this settlement, and it's called the "[[Lost Colony]]."

About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could then protect its newly developing colonies against other European powers.

== Successful Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a "[[joint stock company]]," which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. One of those joint stock companies was the "[[Virginia Company]]," which established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were "English gentlemen" unaccustomed to working with their hands, and who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.

'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.

Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little each person worked. This economic system was a complete failure that led to "starving time" as no one had any incentive to do any work to provide the necessities of life. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: "don't work, don't eat!" Under this new system that replaced communism with free enterprise, after a few years food production began to increase significantly and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.

Jamestown settlers had come to America to find fortune, but there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and shared it with Europeans who were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called "cash crop" became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the South.

Although it profited from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had many difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of just 1200.

But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops. The importation of slaves to the New World was not new in 1619; many European countries had been importing a total of 40,000 slaves to the New World prior to the 1600's based on the Portuguese plantation system for working the land.

In 1624 King James (of the "King James Bible" fame) took back ownership and control of the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. The Virginia colony was mess, a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble was in its future. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. This is known as [[Bacon's Rebellion]] and it resulted in less use of indentured servants and greater reliance on slaves, who could not rebel as easily. Once he was sure Bacon was really dead, the governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters.

The Virginia colony, despite all its troubles, later produced four of our first five presidents. Why? It was big and and rather prosperous.

Let's turn to the Massachusetts settlements next. Massachusetts had a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. Its settlers were motivated by religion, not money. They were unhappy with the oppressions of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of these people set out for North America. The first group, the Separatists or Pilgrims, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and establish a religiously pure community. The second group consisted of more mainstream Puritans who wanted to purify the church from within, without leaving it. Both groups were types of Puritans, and both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.

The first group, the Pilgrims, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company's territory. But their ship, the "Mayflower", was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half of the people died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians.

The Pilgrims had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.

Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world, and it sustains entire countries to this day. Most of us eat lots of corn; corn is also used to make ethanol fuel, and the rising prices for fuel have caused corn prices to increase, which in turn has caused other food and meat to rise in price because animals depend on corn for food. But corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. We can thank the Indians.

Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new group called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. They landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. They never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies, and on occasion West Africa.

== The Colonies ==

What is a "colony"? A "colony" is defined as "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state." (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

From 1607 to 1639, a total of six colonies were established in what is now the United States: Virginia, Massachusetts, New Netherlands (renamed New York), Maryland, Rhode Island and Connecticut. There were four basic types of colonies:

*'''Joint-Stock Colony''': investors fund a colony through a joint-stock company; examples were Virginia and Massachusetts Bay
*'''Charter Colony''': founded on land granted by the king to a company or person who governed by it; examples were Connecticut and Rhode Island, which obtained charters many years after being settled
*'''Proprietary Colony''': owned and controlled by 1 or more persons; examples were Maryland, Pennsylvania (William Penn), Delaware and New York
*'''Royal Colony''': a colony founded or taken back under rule of king, who appoints the governor to rule it; many colonies eventually became royal colonies as the King took back control, as happened in Virginia

The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they eventually joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. In contrast, Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new European settlers based on the "headright system," by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an "indentured servant" for free for fixed number of years on the land.

The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.

While the Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that he found even the Puritans to be lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and how the Puritans had executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams' direction, separated state government from religion. It had no mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues was allowed in Rhode Island.

But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion led to harm. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery.

Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans, [[Anne Hutchinson]], was tried by them in 1636 for emphasizing "grace" rather than "works", and she was forced to flee. She escaped the Puritans but was later killed by Indians. Religious persecution continued in Massachusetts in the mid-1600s: the Baptists were banished in 1651, and the Quakers were expelled or -- when they remained or returned -- they were hung.

The Congregational Church was started by Pilgrims in Plymouth (1620) as Independents. Like the Puritans themselves, the Congregationalists declined over time due dispersal of the population on farms, the growth of rationalism, and perhaps the biggest reason of all, prosperity and the arrogance it often engenders.

Cracks in the Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657. This was an agreement (a covenant) achieved at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners. Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church. The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] (whom we will discuss in the next class), proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members. All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church. But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion. This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue: some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

'''Debate: were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?'''

One prominent textbook claims, under "Rhode Island," that "This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787." That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government. Also, Rhode Island was the '''only''' colony that supported a "separation" of church and state. Other colonies actually funded religion in various ways.

In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.

Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia, which means "brotherly love" in Greek, became America's greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived long-term under private ownership. Most of the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.

Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years '''after''' Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 years after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England, and to serve as a "buffer" colony to separate protect English South Carolina against possible encroachment by Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict, in fact, for the King of England, who then took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.

== Economic System ==

Ultimately, and this is the most difficult for students to understand, it is money ([[economics]]) that shapes much of history. If the colonies were profitable for their mother countries in Europe, then the mother countries would continue to support and defend the colonies. But if the colonies were a money-loser, as in costing more to defend then they make, then they are going to be abandoned or at least no longer protected by the European mother country.

Many of the colonies did make this work, and work well. An [[economic]] system called [[mercantilism]] began to develop in the 1600s and 1700s, which would lay the foundation for capitalism in the 1800s.<ref>http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/mercantilism.html</ref>

The basic concept of mercantilism is to limit imports from foreign countries (not including colonies), and maximize exports to everyone (including other colonies), in order to maximize the "trade surplus" (the amount by which receipts exceeds expenses). Colonies played an important role in this system by supplying raw materials at low cost to the mother country (e.g., England or France), which could then use the materials to produce low-cost finished products that could be sold to the world.<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html</ref> By selling more than the country buys, it could accumulate a surplus in money (gold) and become wealthier. In other words, mercantilism was an economic system in which the colonies existed to give raw materials to mother country (England), and buy her finished products, so that England could export more than it imported and thereby increase its gold reserves from a surplus in the balance of trade.

But there's no free lunch, and these European nations were all-too-happy to use slavery to do the back-breaking work of gathering the raw materials, such as crops and minerals. A slave trade developed to bring blacks from Africa to the New World in order to work the plantations for the settlers from [[England]] and other European powers.

The [[Spanish]] had a different system: they used a modified form of [[feudalism]], known as the encomienda system, in order to force the Indians to do the hard work. The "encomienda" was a grant by the King or Queen of Spain of power over Indians within a geographic region, a grant that was given to an "encomendero", who was the Spaniard in that region who would put the Indians to work.<ref>http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html</ref> The Indians themselves became known as the economiendas.

The Spanish system looked better in theory, because the encomendero was supposed to educate the encomiendas, convert them to Christianity (Catholicism), and not exercise any political power over them (as in telling them how to live). In practice, however, there were no "checks and balances" preventing exploitation and abuse of power in working the Indians.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720. Later historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again. The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World. After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe. But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following: what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa? Nothing comes to mind (other than a few goods to purchase the slaves), and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found. Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa. So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

'''Debate: Did "triangular trade" really exist?'''

== Topics for Discussion ==

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?
*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?
*Question about bias: why would some want to take credit away from Columbus, and how might they do it?

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

Finally, a word about College Board exams. This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $70 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. It is the least biased of the three exams, and not much advanced planning is needed to sign up for it.

The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by more colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9. The student must sign up for it long in advance, and make arrangements with a public high school.

The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June, with registration available online at www.collegeboard.com . No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the cheapest and most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture. Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue has been important throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, discrimination, and gender issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact.

Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges look only at the highest score.

There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[American History Homework One]]
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T18:42:51Z

Saxplayer: /* The Zenger Trial */

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letters on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip questions that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. When you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots (such as on College Board tests), always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Expect Bias from College Board Exams''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government. The colonies functioned like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in trouble, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|Colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|Established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Note that the terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course. Notice how many colonies became royal colonies. Frequently, this occurred because joint stock companies (such as the Virginia Company of London) became insolvent, or the proprietors of the colony proved unable to govern it.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.

Let's proceed now. Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their puzzled doctor, after examining them, suggested that the unknown cause might be supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told identical details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the advancement of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and that the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional scandals that resulted. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and today Massachusetts is one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a time of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do as they pleased in the hope that freedom and minimal taxation would stimulate business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] printed something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him by charging him with "seditious libel." He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, one of the best known attorneys in colonies, surprisingly showed up and agreed to defend Zenger for free. Hamilton argued that it should not be a crime to print something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. It also established that truth is a perfect defense against a charge of libel.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, publishing the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of this power during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the citizens of the English colonies were not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would come to hear his sermon. They didn't leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as free Europeans. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exert even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by Native American tribes, primarily peoples such as the Shawnee and Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) who had been displaced by the Iroquois League. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they came into conflict with the French over the fur trade and control of the region. Conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased after the end of King George's War in 1748.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They considered, but did not adopt Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the English colonies with the Iroquois League in a defensive stance against New France.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort near the site of present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, the French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) "confessing" that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. They had four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

"The" French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side, and there were native peoples who were allied to the British.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly near [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe, Africa, and India, as the war morphed into the first true global conflict.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was appointed Prime Minister of England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, the English captured Fort Duquesne (renaming it Fort Pitt) in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. Taking advantage of their powerful navy, Britain gained control of the sea lanes and started winning in other places in world also, including India.

In 1763, the war ended when Britain, France and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. Under the terms of the treaty, the French lost all of their possessions in North America, yielding to England all of their territory east of the Mississippi, with the exception of two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. England returned Cuba and the Philippines to Spain, in exchange for Florida, while France surrendered the Louisiana territory to Spain. Later, in 1803, Spain sold this land back to France, who quickly sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.

In North America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left the British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians, who were not included nor consulted in the peace settlement, did not give up their land easily. In 1763, Native Americans, inspired by the anti-British message of a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) prophet named Neolin, and led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac, destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the French and Indian War quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the King and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of fighting. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, to grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville (referenced above) gave naval officers the authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, so he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, but it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government buildings. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line (the line preventing colonies from expanding westward) were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the British House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and they realized that they must rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration of Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the King. Cleverly, Dickinson argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished Americans not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and the letter was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pounds between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred.

'''Debate: Should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired on a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely peaceful, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, costing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, which were given pejorative names by the colonists: the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflicts worsened and emotions boiled over.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists' few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders from England to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the colonial "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga from the British in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had few troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval was required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then ended its neutrality and entered on our side.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the Patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the Patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the Patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783, the Treaty of Paris. In it the British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty, and loyalty to England continues to run deep to this day in some families.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T18:37:24Z

Saxplayer: /* Colonial History */

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letters on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip questions that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. When you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots (such as on College Board tests), always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Expect Bias from College Board Exams''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government. The colonies functioned like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in trouble, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|Colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|Established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Note that the terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course. Notice how many colonies became royal colonies. Frequently, this occurred because joint stock companies (such as the Virginia Company of London) became insolvent, or the proprietors of the colony proved unable to govern it.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.

Let's proceed now. Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their puzzled doctor, after examining them, suggested that the unknown cause might be supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told identical details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the advancement of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and that the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional scandals that resulted. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and today Massachusetts is one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a time of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do as they pleased in the hope that freedom and minimal taxation would stimulate business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] printed something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him. He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia surprisingly showed up to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to print something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. That was a radical concept then.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, publishing the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of this power during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the citizens of the English colonies were not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would come to hear his sermon. They didn't leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as free Europeans. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exert even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by Native American tribes, primarily peoples such as the Shawnee and Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) who had been displaced by the Iroquois League. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they came into conflict with the French over the fur trade and control of the region. Conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased after the end of King George's War in 1748.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They considered, but did not adopt Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the English colonies with the Iroquois League in a defensive stance against New France.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort near the site of present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, the French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) "confessing" that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. They had four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

"The" French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side, and there were native peoples who were allied to the British.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly near [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe, Africa, and India, as the war morphed into the first true global conflict.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was appointed Prime Minister of England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, the English captured Fort Duquesne (renaming it Fort Pitt) in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. Taking advantage of their powerful navy, Britain gained control of the sea lanes and started winning in other places in world also, including India.

In 1763, the war ended when Britain, France and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. Under the terms of the treaty, the French lost all of their possessions in North America, yielding to England all of their territory east of the Mississippi, with the exception of two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. England returned Cuba and the Philippines to Spain, in exchange for Florida, while France surrendered the Louisiana territory to Spain. Later, in 1803, Spain sold this land back to France, who quickly sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.

In North America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left the British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians, who were not included nor consulted in the peace settlement, did not give up their land easily. In 1763, Native Americans, inspired by the anti-British message of a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) prophet named Neolin, and led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac, destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the French and Indian War quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the King and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of fighting. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, to grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville (referenced above) gave naval officers the authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, so he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, but it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government buildings. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line (the line preventing colonies from expanding westward) were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the British House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and they realized that they must rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration of Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the King. Cleverly, Dickinson argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished Americans not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and the letter was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pounds between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred.

'''Debate: Should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired on a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely peaceful, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, costing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, which were given pejorative names by the colonists: the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflicts worsened and emotions boiled over.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists' few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders from England to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the colonial "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga from the British in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had few troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval was required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then ended its neutrality and entered on our side.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the Patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the Patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the Patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783, the Treaty of Paris. In it the British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty, and loyalty to England continues to run deep to this day in some families.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T15:11:03Z

Saxplayer: /* French and Indian War */

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letter on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip questions that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. When you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots (such as on College Board tests), always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Expect Bias from College Board Exams''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government. They functioned like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in trouble, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|Colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|Established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Note that the terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course. Notice how many colonies were "taken back" by the King of England. Such is the power of kings, and a good reason to dislike a monarchy.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.
Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their doctor, after examining them, determined that the only cause was supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told the same details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the benefit of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional hardship that caused. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and Massachusetts is one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a period of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do as they pleased in the hope that freedom and minimal taxation would stimulate business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period of time, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] said something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him. He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia surprisingly showed up to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to say something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. That was a radical concept then.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, saying the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of that right during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the citizens of the English colonies were not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would come to hear his sermon. They didn't leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as free Europeans. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exercise even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by Native American tribes, primarily peoples such as the Shawnee and Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) who had been displaced by the Iroquois League. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they came into conflict with the French over the fur trade and control of the region. Conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased after the end of King George's War in 1748.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They considered, but did not adopt Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the English colonies with the Iroquois League in a defensive stance against New France.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort near the site of present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, the French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. There were four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

The French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side, and there were native peoples who were allied to the British.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly near [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe, Africa, and India, as the war morphed into the first true global conflict.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was appointed Prime Minister of England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, the English captured Fort Duquesne (renaming it Fort Pitt) in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. Taking advantage of their powerful navy, Britain gained control of the sea lanes and started winning in other places in world also, including India.

In 1763, the war ended when Britain, France and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. Under the term of the treaty, the French lost all of their possessions in North America, yielding to England all of their territory east of the Mississippi, with the exception of two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. England returned Cuba and the Philippines to Spain, in exchange for Florida, while France surrendered the Louisiana territory to Spain. Later, in 1803, Spain sold this land back to France, who quickly sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.

In North America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left the British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians, who were not included nor consulted in the peace settlement, did not give up their land easily. In 1763, Native Americans, inspired by the anti-British message of a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) prophet named Neolin, and led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the war quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the king and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of fighting. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, to grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville gave naval officers authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, so he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, but it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government building. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and that they must rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration of Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the king. Cleverly, Dickinson argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished American's not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and it was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British Imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pounds between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred.

'''Debate: Should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired on a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely peaceful, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, causing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, given the pejorative names by the colonists of the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflict began to break out.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Often written books or pamphlets were a bigger force than military battles, and this was overwhelmingly true in this case. Nearly every literate adult read Common Sense, and Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had very small troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then entered on our side and ended its neutrality.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783.

The treaty ending the American Revolution was the Treaty of Paris. The British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty. In Gladstone, New Jersey, the "Union Jack" (British flag) can be seen prominently flown to this day on one residential lot (along with the American flag). Nevertheless, the war was finally over, and the citizens of the thirteen colonies were no longer called colonists, but Americans.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T15:09:26Z

Saxplayer: /* French and Indian War */ corrected misspelling

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letter on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip questions that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. When you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots (such as on College Board tests), always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Expect Bias from College Board Exams''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government. They functioned like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in trouble, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|Colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|Established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Note that the terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course. Notice how many colonies were "taken back" by the King of England. Such is the power of kings, and a good reason to dislike a monarchy.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.
Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their doctor, after examining them, determined that the only cause was supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told the same details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the benefit of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional hardship that caused. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and Massachusetts is one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a period of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do as they pleased in the hope that freedom and minimal taxation would stimulate business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period of time, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] said something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him. He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia surprisingly showed up to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to say something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. That was a radical concept then.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, saying the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of that right during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the citizens of the English colonies were not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would come to hear his sermon. They didn't leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as free Europeans. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exercise even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by Native American tribes, primarily peoples such as the Shawnee and Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) who had been displaced by the Iroquois League. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they came into conflict with the French over the fur trade and control of the region. Conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased after the end of King George's War in 1748.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They considered, but did not adopt Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the English colonies with the Iroquois League in a defensive stance against New France.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort near the site of present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, the French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. There were four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

The French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side, and there were native peoples who were allied to the British. Both were opponents of the British and the English colonies.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly near [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe, Africa, and India, as the war morphed into the first true global conflict.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was appointed Prime Minister of England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, the English captured Fort Duquesne (renaming it Fort Pitt) in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. Taking advantage of their powerful navy, Britain gained control of the sea lanes and started winning in other places in world also, including India.

In 1763, the war ended when Britain, France and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. Under the term of the treaty, the French lost all of their possessions in North America, yielding to England all of their territory east of the Mississippi, with the exception of two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. England returned Cuba and the Philippines to Spain, in exchange for Florida, while France surrendered the Louisiana territory to Spain. Later, in 1803, Spain sold this land back to France, who quickly sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.

In North America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left the British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians, who were not included nor consulted in the peace settlement, did not give up their land easily. In 1763, Native Americans, inspired by the anti-British message of a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) prophet named Neolin, and led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the war quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the king and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of fighting. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, to grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville gave naval officers authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, so he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, but it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government building. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and that they must rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration of Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the king. Cleverly, Dickinson argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished American's not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and it was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British Imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pounds between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred.

'''Debate: Should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired on a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely peaceful, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, causing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, given the pejorative names by the colonists of the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflict began to break out.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Often written books or pamphlets were a bigger force than military battles, and this was overwhelmingly true in this case. Nearly every literate adult read Common Sense, and Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had very small troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then entered on our side and ended its neutrality.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783.

The treaty ending the American Revolution was the Treaty of Paris. The British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty. In Gladstone, New Jersey, the "Union Jack" (British flag) can be seen prominently flown to this day on one residential lot (along with the American flag). Nevertheless, the war was finally over, and the citizens of the thirteen colonies were no longer called colonists, but Americans.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T15:04:25Z

Saxplayer: /* French and Indian War */

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Understand''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Eliminate''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letter on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''First Impression''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Stay on Track''': Stay on track during the test. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip questions that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. When you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots (such as on College Board tests), always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Try Different Approaches''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Expect Bias from College Board Exams''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government. They functioned like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in trouble, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|Colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|Established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Note that the terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course. Notice how many colonies were "taken back" by the King of England. Such is the power of kings, and a good reason to dislike a monarchy.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.
Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their doctor, after examining them, determined that the only cause was supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told the same details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the benefit of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional hardship that caused. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and Massachusetts is one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a period of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do as they pleased in the hope that freedom and minimal taxation would stimulate business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period of time, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] said something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him. He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia surprisingly showed up to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to say something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. That was a radical concept then.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, saying the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of that right during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the citizens of the English colonies were not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would come to hear his sermon. They didn't leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as free Europeans. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exercise even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by Native American tribes, primarily peoples such as the Shawnee and Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) who had been displaced by the Iroquois League. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they came into conflict with the French over the fur trade and control of the region. Conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased after the end of King George's War in 1748.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They considered, but did not adopt Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the English colonies with the Iroquois League in a defensive stance against New France.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort near the site of present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, the French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. There were four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

The French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side, and there were native poples who were allied to the British. Both were opponents of the British and the English colonies.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly near [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe, Africa, and India, as the war morphed into the first true global conflict.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was appointed Prime Minister of England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, the English captured Fort Duquesne (renaming it Fort Pitt) in 1758, Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. Taking advantage of their powerful navy, Britain gained control of the sea lanes and started winning in other places in world also, including India.

In 1763, the war ended when Britain, France and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. Under the term of the treaty, the French lost all of their possessions in North America, yielding to England all of their territory east of the Mississippi, with the exception of two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. England returned Cuba and the Philippines to Spain, in exchange for Florida, while France surrendered the Louisiana territory to Spain. Later, in 1803, Spain sold this land back to France, who quickly sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.

In North America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left the British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians, who were not included nor consulted in the peace settlement, did not give up their land easily. In 1763, Native Americans, inspired by the anti-British message of a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) prophet named Neolin, and led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the war quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the king and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of fighting. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, to grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville gave naval officers authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, so he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, but it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government building. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and that they must rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration of Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the king. Cleverly, Dickinson argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished American's not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and it was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British Imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pounds between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred.

'''Debate: Should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired on a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely peaceful, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, causing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, given the pejorative names by the colonists of the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflict began to break out.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Often written books or pamphlets were a bigger force than military battles, and this was overwhelmingly true in this case. Nearly every literate adult read Common Sense, and Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had very small troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then entered on our side and ended its neutrality.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783.

The treaty ending the American Revolution was the Treaty of Paris. The British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty. In Gladstone, New Jersey, the "Union Jack" (British flag) can be seen prominently flown to this day on one residential lot (along with the American flag). Nevertheless, the war was finally over, and the citizens of the thirteen colonies were no longer called colonists, but Americans.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T00:32:27Z

Saxplayer: /* Migration and Conflict */ Iroquois Leauge, not "Leauge of Nations," and the Albany Plan of Union was not adopted.

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Tip Number One''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never, ever try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Tip Number Two''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letter on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''Tip Number Three''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Tip Number Four''': Stay on track. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip a question that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. But when you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots, always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Tip Number Five''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Tip Number Six''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government, and they were like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in jail, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Notice how many colonies were "taken back" by the King of England.<ref>The terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course.</ref> Such is the power of kings, and a good reason to dislike that form of government.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.
Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their doctor, after examining them, determined that the only cause was supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told the same details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the benefit of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional hardship that caused. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a period of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do what they want in the hope that freedom and little taxation would stimulate lots of business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period of time, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] said something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him. He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia surprisingly showed up to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to say something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. That was a radical concept then.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, even saying the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of that right during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the English colonies were majority English, but not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would show to hear his sermon. They did not leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as white people. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exercise even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was the colony (and later, the state) most determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by Native American tribes, primarily peoples such as the Shawnee and Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) who had been displaced by the Iroquois League. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they came into conflict with the French over the fur trade and control of the region. Conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased after the end of King George's War in 1748.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They considered, but did not adopt Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the English colonies with the Iroquois League in a defensive stance against New France.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort near the site of present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, the French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. There were four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

'''The''' French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side. Both were opponents of the British and the English colonies.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly nearly [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe and things got very ugly in America also.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was elected as Prime Minister in England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, he captured Fort Duquesne in 1758, then Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. He started winning other places in world also, including India.

In 1763 the Treaty of Paris was signed, eliminating France and her Indian allies as a threat to colonists. France agreed to give England as much of North America as it claimed East of the Mississippi, keeping only two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. Spain traded Florida to England in return for England giving Cuba and the Philippines to Spain. These countries traded properties in North America as though they were baseball cards!

Around the same time, the Spanish gained the Louisiana territory through a treaty with the French. The French forts remained in the territory, running along the Mississippi as far north as Michigan. Later, in 1800, Spain sold this land back to France, which then sold it to America a few years later.

In America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians did not give up their land easily. Between 1763 and 1766, Native Americans, led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the war quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the king and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of war itself. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, tho grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville gave naval officers authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, next he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like having to sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, and it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers, by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government building. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and that their fate would rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the king. Cleverly, he argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished American's not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and it was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British Imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pound between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred (discussed below).

'''Debate: should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired upon a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely calm, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on the Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, causing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, given the pejorative names by the colonists of the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflict began to break out.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Often written books or pamphlets were a bigger force than military battles, and this was overwhelming true in this case. Nearly every literate adult read Common Sense, and Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had very small troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then entered on our side and ended its neutrality.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783.

The treaty ending the American Revolution was the Treaty of Paris. The British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat fairly the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty. In Gladstone, New Jersey, the "Union Jack" (British flag) can be seen prominently flown to this day on one residential lot (along with the American flag). Nevertheless, the war was finally over, and the citizens of the thirteen colonies were no longer called colonists, but Americans.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-09-08T00:21:48Z

Saxplayer: /* French and Indian War */

Before we start our second lecture for American history, let's review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. Treat a multiple-choice exam like a contest or a game. Your performance on the exam is a function of two elements: how well you prepared prior to the exam, and how well you tried on the exam itself. Many students do not perform as well on a multiple-choice exam as they could have. These tips will help you improve on multiple-choice exams, whether in history, grammar, or even your driving test.

On history exams, many of the correct answers can be figured out during the test, '''if you do not give up too easily on a question'''. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won't be the person who obtains the highest score on the exam. Instead, the highest score usually goes to the person who tried the hardest during the test itself (and also prepared well). Multiple choice exams can be difficult, but some simple rules can increase your score.

== Test-taking tips ==

'''Tip Number One''': Understand the question before you try to answer it. Read the question twice if you have doubts. Never, ever try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on exams by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it. You will see other students miss questions because they misread them.

: Example: Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as "EXCEPT". Every time I give an exam, there are many students who miss questions because they overlook "EXCEPT". Question: "George Washington was popular for all of the reasons EXCEPT" .... You will answer incorrectly if you overlook the "EXCEPT".

'''Tip Number Two''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
*Wrong time period
*The answer doesn't match the question – e.g., the answer is generally true, but not necessarily true with respect to question.
*The answer violates common sense.
*The answer is deceptively familiar for reasons unrelated to the question, such as an answer choice of "[[Magna Carta]]," which is not part of American history.
*The answer is too general, too broad, too sweeping, or too strong, such as an answer that ''everyone'' liked [[George Washington]].
*The answer is too awkward.
*The answer is something you never heard of. Don't pick it simply based on a hope that it might be right.
*Two answers are too similar to each other. Both cannot be correct.

:When you eliminate wrong answers, cross out their corresponding letter on the exam. Try to cross out all the wrong answers except for two. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of being correct. Every time you eliminate an answer choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''Tip Number Three''': Go with your first impression unless you have a good reason to change it. More often than not, your first impression is right. Don't outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions on these exams. There are traps to avoid falling into, but not tricks. Don't second-guess yourself into changing a correct answer into an incorrect one.

'''Tip Number Four''': Stay on track. Expect to miss a few, and do not waste too much time on a difficult question. This is like a round of golf or a game of tennis or baseball: expect to miss some shots or swings. Skip a question that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. But when you have a separate answer page with a grid of dots, always make sure that you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Tip Number Five''': Try different approaches to a difficult question until you figure out the right answer. There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. For example, think of the event in the question in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. There will always be a few questions that you can answer without knowing anything about U.S. History, if you are clever and use common sense.

'''Tip Number Six''': On College Board exams, expect bias. The bias is greatest in the selection and presentation of the questions. For example, there will likely be more questions about [[liberal]] artists and writers than about [[George Washington]] or [[Christopher Columbus]]. College Boards will ask more about the decline of the [[Puritans]] than about their [[Christian]] success. Rarely does bias affect the answer choice itself, but having a sensitivity for the political views of the test-writer can be helpful in considering answer choices. For example, a College Board question will never have as a correct answer that men have some skills that are better than women's, but will often have as a correct answer that men have been prejudiced against women.

Remember and apply the above tips and it will raise your score by 10-30% on test day. Here they are again: Understand, Eliminate, First Impression, Stay on Track and Try Different Approaches. On College Board exams: Expect Bias.

One of my former students took my test-taking advice to heart, and while in college he was once required to take a multiple-choice exam without being able to study or prepare for it. (He had been told he would not have to take the exam, but then the teacher surprised him on exam day.) Using the above techniques, he scored the highest in the class on the exam, beating other students who had spent hours in preparation.

----

== Colonial History ==

During the colonial period, each colony had its own separate government, and they were like different countries. There were no restrictions on travel, but if someone said the wrong thing in another colony they might end up in jail, as many non-[[Puritans]] did in [[Massachusetts]].

The only union before the [[American Revolution]] was the [[United Colonies of New England]], which existed from 1643 to 1684 in the northeast. It consisted of a union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, [[Connecticut]] and New Haven in order to fight war and address interstate disputes. Other than that, "disunity" existed among the colonies.

Now let's review the colonies and keep them in order:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Colony'''
|'''Year Established'''
|'''Who Founded It'''
|'''Why It Was Founded'''
|'''Year it Became a Royal Colony'''
|-
|Virginia
|1607
|London Company
|To Make Money
|In 1624, King James took back ownership
|-
|Massachusetts
|1620
|Puritans
|To Establish a Religious Society
|1691
|-
|New Hampshire
|1623
|John Wheelwright
|Banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts
|1679
|-
|Maryland (Land of Mary)
|1634
|Lord Baltimore
|To Establish freedom for Catholics; many early settlers died from malaria prevalent in the high-moisture Chesapeake Bay climate
|Never
|-
|Connecticut
|1635
|Thomas Hooker
|Hooker wanted voting rights for all men who owned property, not just church members as in Massachusetts
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1662
|-
|Rhode Island
|1636
|Roger Williams
|Expelled by the Puritans
|Never. Obtained Charter from King in 1663
|-
|Delaware
|1631
|founded by the Dutch
|In 1704, Quakers bought it to protect the water route to Pennsylvania
|Never
|-
|North Carolina
|1653
|8 English noblemen (granted by Charles II)
|colonized all of Carolina to grow silk, but this failed. Colony split in 1729 into North Carolina (farms) and South Carolina (rice and indigo)
|1729
|-
|South Carolina
|1663
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|same origin as North Carolina, see above
|1729
|-
|New Jersey
|1664
|Lord Berkeley & Sir George Carteret
|It had two parts: the west was acquired by William Penn and the Quakers, and the east was dominated by the Duke of York
|1702
|-
|New York (after defeat of the Dutch)
|1664
|Duke of York
|the great port of Manhattan was supposedly purchased from the Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets<ref>http://www.kb.nl/coop/geheugen/extra/tentoonstellingen/atlanticworldEN/tentoon5.html</ref>
|1685
|-
|Pennsylvania
|1682
|William Penn
|Religious Freedom for Quakers; King Charles II gave land to Penn to satisfy the King's debt to his father
|Never
|-
|Georgia
|1732
|James Edward Oglethorpe
|established as a refuge for debtors jailed in England and as a "buffer" against Spanish Florida; initially banned slavery
|1752
|}

Learn and remember the above chart. Notice how many colonies were "taken back" by the King of England.<ref>The terms "England" and "Britain" are used interchangeably (with the same meaning) throughout this course.</ref> Such is the power of kings, and a good reason to dislike that form of government.

Now let's continue with the Colonies around the turn of the century (i.e., the late 1600s and early 1700s). Don't memorize dates, but do keep time periods separate in your mind. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except for [[Georgia]], which was the only colony founded in the 1700s rather than the 1600s). In the 1700s, the colonies (except for Georgia) had long been established and were just growing stronger.

I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s. Learn to quiz yourself:

*Jamestown settlement, 1600s or 1700s?
*[[Bacon's Rebellion]], 1600s or 1700s?
*Founding of [[Pennsylvania]], 1600s or 1700s?

If you don't know the answers in all three cases, then please go back and read the first lecture.
Upheaval occurred in England in 1688. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began in Puritan Massachusetts, in towns located north of Boston. Several girls displayed symptoms suggesting they were possessed by the devil, and it remains a mystery to this day what caused their afflictions, or even if they were play acting. Their doctor, after examining them, determined that the only cause was supernatural. The community became suspicious of an Indian slave from Barbados in the Caribbean, named Tituba, who had been telling stories of voodoo and witchcraft and even fed a "witchcake" to a dog (at her master's instructions) to ward off the devil. The girls told the same details about how the devil visited them, including seeing "witches flying through the winter mist." Tituba first denied being a witch, but then "confessed" that she was a witch and named other townswomen (including a tavern owner) who she said were witches working with her. Tituba declared that a tall man from Boston, perhaps Satan, visited her and sometimes appeared as a dog or a hog, asking her to do his work. She said she had flown through the air on poles with the other witches she named, and could not obtain counseling from the minister because the devil had blocked her path.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM</ref>

Before long the local jails were overflowing with witches identified by other witches who had "confessed", and trials had to be held to free up space in jail. But trials then were primitive, allowing "spectral evidence" as a basis for convicting someone. "Spectral evidence" is testimony by a victim that she had been visited by an image ("specter") of the accused, thereby suggesting the guilt of the accused. Another flaw in the legal system included a lack of a defense attorney for the accused, the allowance of "touching tests" as evidence, and proof did not have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," as it must be today.

City authorities prosecuted the suspects (mostly older women but also some men), and nearly two dozen were convicted and executed for the crime of witchcraft. Some thought that the trials offered an opportunity to expose the nature and ways of the devil for the benefit of knowledge. But others observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused witches identified the wife of the governor as being a witch. That alarmed the governor himself, obviously, and he intervened to order the exclusion of spectral evidence and touching tests as evidence against the accused, and that proof be based on a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Under these better legal standards, nearly everyone was acquitted (found "not guilty") and the governor pardoned the few who were still convicted. Tituba herself, who sparked the panic, later recanted her "confession" but remained in jail another year until a kind person paid the jailer money to release her and her husband. (Note that while a few Puritans did own slaves in early times, they did not split slave families.) Many associated with the trials later apologized, but not the Chief Judge William Stoughton. He always insisted that he was about to "clear the land" of witches and the governor should not have intervened to prevent this; Stoughton subsequently became governor himself of the Massachusetts colony.

This entire episode is taught today to embarrass the [[Puritan]]s and religious authority in general. But this episode did not directly weaken [[Puritan]] authority. Instead, it was success and prosperity that caused people to turn away from the strict Puritan life. In 1850 a classic in American literature, The Scarlet Letter, described life in Puritan Boston in the 1600s and criticized its strict adherence to morality and the occasional hardship that caused. Yet when that public morality was abandoned, Boston and Massachusetts became the most liberal areas in the nation, and one of only two states to allow same-sex marriage. Morally, Massachusetts is now directly opposite to what it was in the 1600s.

'''Debate: Does the legal system or the Puritans -- or neither -- deserve blame for the Salem Witch Trials?'''

== Salutary Neglect ==

The period of "salutary neglect" was a period of prosperity in the colonies during which [[England]] did not enforce many rules or laws against the colonies. Instead, England let the colonies do what they want in the hope that freedom and little taxation would stimulate lots of business growth.

This approach of "salutary neglect" was very successful. It lasted from the late 1600s (just after all the colonies were established) until about 1760, when conflicts began and Britain changed its "hands off" policy.

During this period of time, colonies differed in many ways from each other, but businesses flourished and the wealth of the colonies grew.

== The Zenger Trial ==

Freedom began to cause problems in the colony of New York when the governor disliked criticism that appeared in the newspaper. [[John Peter Zenger]] said something unkind about the governor, and the governor decided to silence him. He demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him.

Zenger was then put on trial in 1735. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia surprisingly showed up to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to say something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. In other words, Zenger's attorney thought that someone should have a right to tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing it may be. That was a radical concept then.

The judge instructed the jury that, under the law, even saying the truth about someone can be a crime (the crime of "libel"). But the jury ignored this law and held in favor of Zenger: "not guilty." This case established a unique new American right: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America, while those in England still do not.<ref>To this day, English courts welcome libel lawsuits far more than American courts do. "Known as the 'libel capital of the world' because of its plaintiff-friendly rules on defamation, Britain has nothing remotely comparable to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of the press."[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html]</ref>

This important case also helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial established one additional right: the power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as "jury nullification," and it also exists to this day. Juries may "nullify" the law to find a defendant "not guilty," but defense attorneys are not allowed to inform a jury of that right during a specific trial. Jurors have to know it already, or decide to do it on their own, as the jury did in the Zenger case.

'''Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant "not guilty?"'''

== 1730-1740: The Great Awakening ==

In the 1700s, the English colonies grew in size, reaching 2 million in population compared to only 100,000 in the French settlements.

But note that the English colonies were majority English, but not exclusively English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, and Scotch-Irish immigrated to the back country of the Middle Colonies and settled in Appalachia (where they remain a key voting bloc for the upcoming 2008 presidential election). The Middle Colonies were New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and consisted of many diverse ethnic groups and religions; prejudice existed between the groups but they were peaceful towards each other. William Penn even ''advertised'' for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania.

In the 1730s and 1740s, a marvelous spiritual revival known as the "Great Awakening" swept the colonies. A glorious [[Christian]] fervor spread throughout, helping to bring the colonies closer together in terms of beliefs, customs and practices. Led Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, this was called "New Light" revivalism to distinguish it from the spiritualism of the 1600s.

Jonathan Edwards was brilliant man who graduated valedictorian at age 17 from [[Yale University]]. (Harvard was founded in 1636; the College of William & Mary in 1693; and Yale in 1701). As Edwards grew older, he developed a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It was so powerful that it moved listeners to tearfully repent simply upon hearing it, and it remains the most prominently cited example of "fire-and-brimstone" preaching.

George Whitefield was an even better preacher, perhaps the finest preacher of all time in the English-speaking world. Known as the "Great Itinerant," he drew enormous crowds for his sermons as he did seven tours through the colonies from 1740 to 1770. He would simply arrive at a public place, like the Boston Commons, and many thousands would show to hear his sermon. They did not leave disappointed.

Not all was well for everyone in the colonies during the Great Awakening. During this time [[South Carolina]] had grown heavily dependent on slavery to pick its crops and sustain its economy. By the late 1730s South Carolina had twice as many slaves as white people. In 1739 tensions between the slaves and their masters reached a boiling point in the Stono Rebellion in Charleston. This insurgency by the slaves was brutally suppressed, and then South Carolina passed harsh laws (codes) to exercise even more control over the slaves. More so than any other colony (and later, more than any other state), South Carolina was the colony (and later, the state) most determined to keep and use slavery.

== Migration and Conflict ==

West of the Appalachian Mountains is the Ohio Valley. This area was rich in animals necessary for the lucrative fur trade, and covered vast amounts of unsettled land. The Ohio valley was occupied by roaming Native American tribes, primarily those of the Iroquois League of Nations. Both the British and the French traded with the Indians in this region. As the population and confidence of the English settlers in the colonies grew in the mid-1700s, they began to migrate to Ohio. There they conflicted with French fur trade with Indians. Because of this, conflict between the English colonists and the French traders increased around 1740.

In 1754, 7 colonies met to address these problems at the Albany Congress. They adopted Ben Franklin's Albany Plan of Union based on the Iroquois League of Nations. The Albany Plan of Union attempted to unite the (English) colonies sufficiently to defend themselves against the French.

The governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to stop the French from building a fort in modern day Pennsylvania, and to protest French attacks. But in Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, French defeated and captured him and his 400 troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure that in the future he always had an aide who could understand French. That future aide would be the very influential Founding Father named Alexander Hamilton.

While George Washington was humiliated by this experience, that did not matter to the young colonies trying to assert themselves. When he returned to Virginia was treated as their hero.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value. Think about that as we learn more about him.

'''Debate: [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?'''

== French and Indian War ==

The English and the French did not like each other in Europe, and their conflicts there spilled over into America. They had constant friction in fighting over territory and trading rights. There were four wars between 1689 and 1763, which are known collectively as the French and Indian Wars.

The French traded more with the Indians, and so the Indians tended to side with the French. Also, some Indians saw how George Washington was defeated, so they probably thought the English colonies were weaker than the French. Finally, it's likely the French treated the Indians better than the English did.

'''The''' French and Indian War was the seven-year struggle that was the culmination of the conflicts between France and England in America. It was the American portion of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) between England and France in Europe. The name "French and Indian" to describe the war is confusing, because the French and Indians were on the same side. Both were opponents of the British and the English colonies.

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly nearly [[Fort Duquesne]] (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe and things got very ugly in America also.

The British struggled badly at first in this war. But eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was elected as Prime Minister in England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt's leadership, he captured Fort Duquesne in 1758, then Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. He started winning other places in world also, including India.

In 1763 the Treaty of Paris was signed, eliminating France and her Indian allies as a threat to colonists. France agreed to give England as much of North America as it claimed East of the Mississippi, keeping only two islands off the coast of Newfoundland. Spain traded Florida to England in return for England giving Cuba and the Philippines to Spain. These countries traded properties in North America as though they were baseball cards!

Around the same time, the Spanish gained the Louisiana territory through a treaty with the French. The French forts remained in the territory, running along the Mississippi as far north as Michigan. Later, in 1800, Spain sold this land back to France, which then sold it to America a few years later.

In America, the end of the French and Indian Wars left British with a great deal of territory west of the Appalachians, but the Indians did not give up their land easily. In 1763, Native Americans, led by the Ottawa chieftain Pontiac destroyed every British post west of the Appalachians with the exceptions of Niagara, Pitt, and Detroit.

== King George III, and Debts ==

Meanwhile there had been a big change in England. [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760 (he ruled until 1820). He had wanted to end the war quickly. William Pitt wanted England to escalate the war, and resigned in 1761, due partly to pressure by George III. George III, after all, was the king and he demanded obedience from Pitt.

George III openly controlled Parliament, bribing men to do anything he wanted by placing them in positions of power. This significantly altered the face of Parliament, and the majority became much less sympathetic to the colonies. The ruling sentiment was that the colonies should be obliged to pay for their own expenses, rather than depending on the mother county (England).

This war with France left Britain deeply in debt, and tired of war itself. A new prime minister, George Grenville, came into power in 1763. The citizens of England were already being heavily taxed, so guess where Grenville looked to raise money to pay the bills? The colonies.

England felt that the colonists hadn't paid their fair share of the war expenses. To keep from spending any more money, England was eager to make peace with the Indians and stop fighting. England passed the Proclamation Act of 1763, forbidding colonists from settling west of Appalachians and forcing them to stop buying land from Indians. The Proclamation Act ordered, "that no governor or Commander in chief of our other colonies of plantations in America, do presume for the present, and until our further pleasure be know, tho grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads of sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north west..."

The logic behind the Proclamation Act was that as long as the colonists stayed in the colonies and had nothing to do with Indians, there would be peace. Little did the British know that peace would not last for long in the colonies, and that when war did break out again, it would be against the British themselves.

==Tension Grows==

In 1770, the [[British Empire]] was the greatest in the world, and it continued to grow in power through the 1800s. The idea that 13 different colonies with tiny armies and a divided populations - a large percentage of which were pacifist Quakers - could defeat the mighty British would have been absurd in 1770. But this unlikely victory came true. The story of this epic struggle for freedom is the story of the American Revolution.

Years before war broke out, tension was growing between England and her colonies. King George III controlled parliament much more than preceding monarchs had, and his changes facilitated attempts to gain additional revenue from the colonies. This was accomplished through higher taxes and restrictive trade laws which oppressed the colonies. We've already discussed the institution of the Proclamation Act, and now we need to discuss its consequences.

The Proclamation Act imposed an enormous burden on the colonies. When it passed in 1763, 90% of the colonial economy depended on farming. Farmers needed land to grow valuable crops of tobacco, corn, rice, indigo, and wheat, but the Proclamation Act confined them to the land they already had in the colonies. The other 10% of the colonial economy involved fishing and whaling in New England and timber, but the overwhelming majority of colonists were farmers, and the Proclamation Act was detrimental to their growth.

In addition, many colonists felt that the Proclamation Act was simply unfair. They had worked hard fighting the French and Indian Wars, but now England was denying them the territory they had won.

The situation was similar to today's problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it. Frontiers continued to expand westward.

== Conflict Increases ==

The first true crisis began around 1763 when Parliament allocated money to maintain a standing army in the colonies. At first, this change did not arouse much anger, since there was already a British army in America. But conflicts began when Grenville gave naval officers authority to enforce customs regulations. More than 1500 ships began to patrol American waters. This new vigilance on Britain's part was early evidence of her changing relationship to her colonies, foreshadowing the greater tension to come.

Grenville wanted the colonies to pay their share of the war costs, next he started burdening colonists by strictly enforcing taxes. The era of [[salutary neglect]] was over, and colonists did not like having to sending their hard-earned money to Britain.

The first of these tax burdens was the Sugar Act. As its name suggests, this act imposed taxes on sugar, and it also imposed additional burdens. The Sugar Act placed stricter regulations on all shipping, stopped the colonies from importing rum, and lowered molasses tariffs that had been benefiting the colonies. The British made no secret of the fact that the purpose of the Sugar Act was to make money: "Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom...: and whereas it is just and necessary that a revenue be raised in you majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we...have resolved to give and grant unto your majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned."

Grenville viewed the colonies as subservient to him. Grenville humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions. He violated ancient rights by authorizing writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant.

Colonists disliked these events, but only with the passage of the [[Stamp Act]] did they become truly angry. The Stamp Act was an undisguised attempt to bring the British more money, the first time Parliament directly taxed the colonies. It required that legal papers, cards, dice, newspapers, degrees, land documents, and appointments to office bear stamps (not postage stamps) showing that coin tax had been paid. Subtly, the British were suppressing vocal writers and lawyers, by making their professions more costly. The public, and especially the media, was outraged.

A few months later, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required colonial governments to house British troops at their own expense. The troops were to be housed in inns, abandoned homes, and government building. The Act mandated that "all such officers and soldiers ... be furnished and supplied ... with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils ... without paying anything for the same."

Anger by the colonists against the King, which existed before the Stamp Act and Quartering Act, rose to a fever pitch. The colonists held to a strong argument against England's oppression: taxation without representation. The colonists pointed out that they were not represented in British Parliament when these taxes were passed. The colonies could not elect anyone who was making these decisions. The colonists had no "say" in the matter. The British leaders responded by saying the colonists had "virtual" representation by Englishmen who were looking out for them. Nonsense, the colonists said, adequate representation was impossible because England was so far away.
Patrick Henry put this argument into words in one of his resolutions which were published in newspapers throughout the colonies: "''Resolved.'' That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, are the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist."

To confront the problems, nine colonies met with each other in the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October 1765. This was the first time the colonists had come together to consider protesting. They sent a petition to the King. Later, a boycott of British goods was organized.

Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act's direct (internal) taxation. If the Act were not odious enough in its own right, the fact that it came during a time of weak economy threatened to injure the colonies more deeply. The outrage united colonists, for the Stamp Act affected every colony and every citizen. They shared the injury of a common grievance, and had a common cause to work towards.

In Massachusetts, Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty during July 1765. This group strongly protested the Stamp Act and forced British-appointed stamp agent Andrew Oliver to resign.

When stamp agents in the other colonies realized how unpopular they were, most of them resigned also. The few that remained were pressured to resign, and sometimes forced, as in the case of Jared Ingersoll. "They caught Ingersoll at Wethersfield and silently and pointedly led him under a large tree. They parlayed for hours ..., with Ingersoll squirming, arguing and refusing to resign. The crowds ... grew so large and threatening that finally Ingersoll read his resignation to the mob and yielded to the demand that he throw his hat in the air and cheer for 'Liberty and Property.'"

When the Stamp Act took effect, there was no one to sell stamps in the colonies. Business went on as usual and the Act was not effectively enforced.

Realizing that it had underestimated the colonies, Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 but passed the Declaratory Act asserting a right by Britain to legislate for colonies in future. Public outrage decreased dramatically because the Stamp Act was repealed, even though the Sugar Act, Quartering Act, and Proclamation Line were still in effect.

In 1767, Charles Townshend replaced William Pitt in Britain as leader in the House of Commons. Pitt had been generous to the colonies, and quite popular in America. But Townshend viewed America as an opportunity to increase revenue. His attempts to do this were a series of taxes called the Townshend Acts. They taxed paper, lead, paint, and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Townshend also tried to divide the colonies from each other by telling only New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. But the rising conflict, particularly that of the Stamp Act, had already begun to unify the colonies, and that their fate would rise or fall together.

The colonies did not react as swiftly as they had to the Stamp Act. But they did resist, primarily due to clever pamphlets that educated and incited them. John Dickinson's pamphlet, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" was first published in 1767, and spread throughout the colonies as well as to Ireland, England, and France. Dickinson, known as the "Penman of the Revolution," was a superb writer who also drafted the "Declaration Rights" for the Stamp Act Congress, the "Olive Branch Petition", and the Articles of Confederation.

The "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" maintained an impression of loyalty to the king. Cleverly, he argued not from the standpoint of the colonies, but in terms of England's well being, and benefit to her. He admonished American's not to allow chaos break out (as occurred in the French Revolution a decade later): "The cause of ''liberty'' is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult."

By 1768, the colonists were ready to act. Massachusetts wrote a letter to the British and it was endorsed (co-signed) by New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, and South Carolina.

A harsh response came from across the Atlantic in Britain, ordering Massachusetts to revoke their letter, and admonishing other states to have no part in stirring up resentment toward Britain. In June, more troops arrived from England.

Next, the colonists boycotted British goods. The boycott was very effective. British Imports fell from 2,157,218 pounds to 1,336,122 pound between 1768 and 1769.

Feeling the strength of the colonies once again, Britain repealed the Townshend Acts, but the tea tax remained. This tension would explode on the night of December 16, 1773, when the Boston Tea Party occurred (discussed below).

'''Debate: should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?'''

== Violence Begins ==

In 1770, in what became known as the "Boston Massacre," British troops (which had been stationed in Boston to enforce the Townshend Act) fired upon a colonial mob that was throwing snowballs (with rocks in them) at the soldiers. The massacre resulted in the death of 5 colonists.<ref>http://www.bostonmassacre.net/plot/detailed1.htm</ref>. The future President John Adams then served as the defense attorney for the British soldiers, and obtained "not guilty" (acquittal) verdicts for them because they were provoked into shooting.

This incident outraged the colonies, but it was followed by relative calm from 1770 to 1773. Things were not completely calm, however. In 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee incident, Rhode Island colonists boarded the British Gaspee ship and burned her, to the King's great outrage. The Gaspee had run aground while chasing smugglers, and the Rhode Island colonists had taken advantage of its misfortune.

Meanwhile, the revolutionary Samuel Adams was busy establishing a resistance organization known as the Committee of Correspondence. This group, and others like it throughout the colonies, shared and disseminated information on the Britain's activities.

Thus, although conflicts diminished somewhat from 1770 to 1773, colonists retained their opposition to British oppression. The tea tax remained in effect, so many colonists refused to drink British tea, and once again, their boycott was felt in England.

Bent on breaking the colonists' boycott of English tea, England next passed the Tea Act of 1773. A large British tea company, the East India Company, lobbied for and obtained [[monopoly]] (exclusive) rights from the England. The East India Company had a huge inventory of tea and received an exception from the tea tax. This enabled the East India Company to import tea from their huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where they planned to undersell colonial merchants. The Puritans of Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. On December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel Adams disguised themselves as Indians and boarded the tea ships. They dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor; this was the "Boston Tea Party." The task took an entire night, as the ships contained 350 chests of tea, causing about 1.87 million dollars in wasted tea (converted to today's dollars).

As punishment, Britain passed harsh laws, given the pejorative names by the colonists of the Coercive Acts or, alternatively, the Intolerable Acts. These laws revoked Massachusetts' charter, closed Boston Harbor, installed a British general as governor, and repealed liberties like the right to hold town meetings. The closing of the harbor, in particular, was a sore blow to Massachusetts, whose economy was largely dependent on fishing and whaling.

In defiance, public sentiment turned violently against tea. Coffee gradually replaced it, and continues to be more popular than tea in America to this day. In Boston, there is still no tax on tea as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave Canadians part of the Ohio Valley. This further infuriated the colonists. In addition, the Act gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

Although many colonists remained loyal to the King and had hoped to keep peace, conflict began to break out.
[[Image:13colonies1775.jpg|right]]

== Causes of the American Revolution ==

Let's stop for a moment to review the causes of the revolution. British oppression was not the only catalyst of the Revolutionary War, and many factors played a role:

:(1) Colonists were accustomed to much independence and self-determination, and Tory efforts to regulate and tax were bitterly opposed by the Colonies (and by Whigs in England).

:(2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life.

:(3) Taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression.

:(4) Legally, colonies disagreed with "virtual representation."

:(5) Religious reasons: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop.

:(6) Colonists disliked English class distinctions.

:(7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and thus felt no attachment to the British.

:(8) Colonists accepted John Locke's philosophy of natural rights and a social contract, which conflicted with rule by a monarchy.

:(9) Colonists saw a bright prospect for their future.

==The American Revolution==

The Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts sparked the Revolution. Britain had backed down from earlier conflicts caused by its laws, but not this time. Britain was determined to bring America into line.

The colonists responded with the [[First Continental Congress]], in 1774. Every colony except Georgia agreed to disobey the Coercive Acts and to withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm their people. Their agreement is recorded in the Declaration of Rights and Grievances by John Adams. The Congress also gave Massachusetts instructions on resisting the Coercive Acts, called the Suffolk Resolves. Massachusetts, still heavily Puritan, was prepared to defy the British. The Congress composed a set of Declarations and Resolves which established the colonies' position toward Britain. The colonies agreed to end all trade with Britain in a final effort to have her alter her policies. All of these plans were carried out.

Yet the British did not back down. Colonists were prohibited from presenting petitions and declarations and resolutions to Parliament. William Pitt, one of the colonists few friends in the British Parliament, introduced a resolution to withdraw British troops from the colonies. This was defeated in Parliament by a wide margin: 68 to 18. Parliament officially declared that Massachusetts was in rebellion.

Many Americans were ready to forsake all hope of peace. Patrick Henry was one of these, when he said these words in a famous address, "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, '''give me liberty or give me death!'''"

On April 19, 1775, the British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], responded to orders to forcibly stop the rebellion. He sent troops to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammunition, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his famous midnight ride to alert the colonists. They were ready. After years of conflict, war finally began. At Lexington, just 75 colonists faced several hundred British soldiers. When the British ordered the colonists to disperse, gunfire broke out. Eight colonists were killed and ten were wounded in the ensuing chaos. But 73 British died.

The British troops continued to Concord. Here a larger number of colonists attacked them and routed them back to Lexington. Only 93 colonists died in comparison to 275 British soldiers. The British were narrowly saved by the arrival of reinforcements.

That and other conflicts brought the colonies together in 1775 for the [[Second Continental Congress]]. They realized that hope for peace was foolish now. It was time to prepare for war. The Congress instituted paper money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], which he then led throughout the Revolution. As a last attempt for peace, they sent the "Olive Branch Petition" (written by Charles Townshend) to the King. He refused even to receive the petition. War was inevitable.

As the Congress met in Philadelphia, the "Green Mountain Boys" captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 because Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in a disputed area near Lake Champlain. (Lake Champlain is located in the far north of Vermont, which was not a colony then.)

In January of 1776 [[Thomas Paine]]'s pamphlet called [[Common Sense]] argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay with Britain, in plain language. Often written books or pamphlets were a bigger force than military battles, and this was overwhelming true in this case. Nearly every literate adult read Common Sense, and Paine's argument gave countless colonists the courage to realize that separation from Britain was necessary and attainable. After only three months, 120,000 copies had been sold!

Here are some of Paine's words against divine rule: "The heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world had improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence of Independence was formally announced. It declares that all men are created equal, having natural inalienable rights. The colonies' many grievances against the crown were listed. It argued that government is a social compact and rebellion is justified when the government break its end of the bargain. This logic was borrowed from the philosophy of John Locke. But perhaps the most important part of the Declaration was its frequent invocation of God. Our nation was founded on God's providence and truth.

Still, the colonies had very small troops, especially since one-third of the population was loyal to Britain and another significant percentage were pacifist [[Quakers]]. Washington's army was composed of just 18,000 men, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium for a football game. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. The colonies did not start winning until Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton.

During the winter of 1777 Washington quartered his troops in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. This winter was filled with suffering. The troops lacked supplies and many died of starvation and cold. But the training the troops received during this time was invaluable. Prussian Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben drilled the troops throughout the winter, and his expertise may well have aided in turning the tide against the British.

In 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation to govern the colonies, but they were not ratified until 1781. The government they instituted was weak, without a president or courts, and unanimous approval required to amend them. Eventually, they were replaced by the Constitution.

At Saratoga in upstate New York in October 1777, 6,000 British soldiers surrendered, constituting a huge victory for the colonies. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. The Saratoga victory was the turning point in the war, because the French then entered on our side and ended its neutrality.

Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in obtaining French backing for the American cause and forging the Franco-American Alliance in 1778. Due to Franklin's efforts as an ambassador to France, and the inspiration of the colonies' victory at Saratoga, France recognized the colonies' independence, entered into a military alliance with the colonies, and renounced its territory east of the Mississippi as well as Bermuda. Franklin, it is worth noting, had other significant achievements that included writing Poor Richard's Almanac, inventing the Franklin stove for heating, and starting the first library.

Despite the alliance with the French and the northern victories by the patriots (Americans), the British were still beating the patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, the patriots installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of the revolution's best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, Virginia.

In May 1781, the French arrived with two fleets, and trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They were forced to surrender their entire army of 8,000. But the British still held New York, and did not finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783.

The treaty ending the American Revolution was the Treaty of Paris. The British gave up their claim to land east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. The Americans promised to treat fairly the Loyalists (colonists loyal to the King) and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. Some people on both sides refused to abide by the treaty. In Gladstone, New Jersey, the "Union Jack" (British flag) can be seen prominently flown to this day on one residential lot (along with the American flag). Nevertheless, the war was finally over, and the citizens of the thirteen colonies were no longer called colonists, but Americans.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Moon Griffon

2008-09-03T12:32:00Z

Saxplayer: New page: This article was plagiarized from Wikipedia--~~~~

This article was plagiarized from Wikipedia--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 08:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)