3795 Part-01 Section a 7..10
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named 'American Revolution Museum at Yorktown'
DISPATCH A Newsletter of the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation • Spring 2012 Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named ‘American Revolution Museum at Yorktown’ Along with a physical transforma- bonds, is estimated at $46 tion of the Yorktown Victory Center will million. Private donations come a new name – “American Revolu- to the Jamestown-Yorktown tion Museum at Yorktown” – adopted Foundation, Inc., will sup- May 10 by the Jamestown-Yorktown port elements of gallery Foundation Board of Trustees and and outdoor exhibits and endorsed by the Jamestown-Yorktown educational resources. Foundation, Inc., Board of Directors. “The new name high- Recommended by a board naming lights the core offering of study task force, the new name will the museum, American be implemented upon completion of Revolution history,” said the museum replacement, and in the Frank B. Atkinson, who meantime the Yorktown Victory Center chaired the naming study will continue in operation as a museum task force comprised of 11 The distinctive two-story main entrance of the American of the American Revolution. members of the Jamestown- Revolution Museum at Yorktown will serve as a focal point Construction is expected to start Yorktown Foundation for arriving visitors. in the second half of 2012 on the proj- and Jamestown-Yorktown name were identified, and research ect, which includes an 80,000-square- Foundation, Inc., boards, “and the in- was undertaken on names currently in foot structure that will encompass ex- clusion of the word ‘Yorktown’ provides use. Selected names were tested with panded exhibition galleries, classrooms a geographical anchor. We arrived Yorktown Victory Center visitors and and support functions, and reorganiza- at this choice through a methodical reviewed by a trademark attorney and tion of the 22-acre site. -
2015 May Christopher Rivera.Pdf (1.964Mb)
School of Graduate Studies Colorado State University–Pueblo 2200 Bonforte Boulevard Pueblo, Colorado 81001 (719) 549–2100 “INTO DUST AND OBSCURITY”: SILAS DEANE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE 1778 TREATY OF ALLIANCE by Christopher Michael-Anthony Rivera _____________________ A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY–PUEBLO Pueblo, Colorado, USA MAY 2015 Master’s Thesis Committee: Advisor: Dr. Matthew L. Harris Dr. Paul Conrad Dr. Brigid Vance STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted and approved for the partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at Colorado State University–Pueblo. It is deposited in the University Library and available to borrowers of the library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowed without special permission, provided that, accurate acknowledgment of their source is indicated. Requests for permission to use extended quotations, or to reproduce the manuscript in whole or in part, may be granted by the History Graduate Program or the Graduate Studies Director in History in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. Signed: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ APPROVAL BY THESIS ADVISOR THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE SHOWN BELOW: ________________________________ ____________ Dr. Matthew Harris Date Committee Chair Professor of History ________________________________ ____________ Graduate Studies Director in History Date Dr. Matthew Harris “INTO DUST AND OBSCURITY”: SILAS DEANE AND THE DRAFTING OF THE 1778 TREATY OF ALLIANCE by Christopher Michael-Anthony Rivera Silas Deane’s role during the American Revolution has been examined by numerous academics, including George Clark, Jonathan Dull, Julian Boyd, Richard Morris, David Jayne Hill, and Walter Isaacson. -
Jefferson and Franklin
Jefferson and Franklin ITH the exception of Washington and Lincoln, no two men in American history have had more books written about W them or have been more widely discussed than Jefferson and Franklin. This is particularly true of Jefferson, who seems to have succeeded in having not only bitter critics but also admiring friends. In any event, anything that can be contributed to the under- standing of their lives is important; if, however, something is dis- covered that affects them both, it has a twofold significance. It is for this reason that I wish to direct attention to a paragraph in Jefferson's "Anas." As may not be generally understood, the "Anas" were simply notes written by Jefferson contemporaneously with the events de- scribed and revised eighteen years later. For this unfortunate name, the simpler title "Jeffersoniana" might well have been substituted. Curiously enough there is nothing in Jefferson's life which has been more severely criticized than these "Anas." Morse, a great admirer of Jefferson, takes occasion to say: "Most unfortunately for his own good fame, Jefferson allowed himself to be drawn by this feud into the preparation of the famous 'Anas/ His friends have hardly dared to undertake a defense of those terrible records."1 James Truslow Adams, discussing the same subject, remarks that the "Anas" are "unreliable as historical evidence."2 Another biographer, Curtis, states that these notes "will always be a cloud upon his integrity of purpose; and, as is always the case, his spitefulness toward them injured him more than it injured Hamilton or Washington."3 I am not at all in accord with these conclusions. -
Chapter 5 – the Enlightenment and the American Revolution I. Philosophy in the Age of Reason (5-1) A
Chapter 5 – The Enlightenment and the American Revolution I. Philosophy in the Age of Reason (5-1) A. Scientific Revolution Sparks the Enlightenment 1. Natural Law: Rules or discoveries made by reason B. Hobbes and Lock Have Conflicting Views 1. Hobbes Believes in Powerful Government a. Thomas Hobbes distrusts humans (cruel-greedy-selfish) and favors strong government to keep order b. Promotes social contract—gaining order by giving up freedoms to government c. Outlined his ideas in his work called Leviathan (1651) 2. Locke Advocates Natural Rights a. Philosopher John Locke believed people were good and had natural rights—right to life, liberty, and property b. In his Two Treatises of Government, Lock argued that government’s obligation is to protect people’s natural rights and not take advantage of their position in power C. The Philosophes 1. Philosophes: enlightenment thinkers that believed that the use of reason could lead to reforms of government, law, and society 2. Montesquieu Advances the Idea of Separation of Powers a. Montesquieu—had sharp criticism of absolute monarchy and admired Britain for dividing the government into three branches b. The Spirit of the Laws—outlined his belief in the separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial branches) to check each other to stop one branch from gaining too much power 3. Voltaire Defends Freedom of Thought a. Voltaire—most famous of the philosophe who published many works arguing for tolerance and reason—believed in the freedom of religions and speech b. He spoke out against the French government and Catholic Church— makes powerful enemies and is imprisoned twice for his views 4. -
Peace of Paris (1783) 1 Peace of Paris (1783)
Peace of Paris (1783) 1 Peace of Paris (1783) The Peace of Paris (1783) was the set of treaties which ended the American Revolutionary War. On 3 September 1783, representatives of King George III of Great Britain signed a treaty in Paris with representatives of the United States of America—commonly known as the Treaty of Paris (1783)—and two treaties at Versailles with representatives of King Louis XVI of France and King Charles III of Spain—commonly known as the Treaties of Versailles (1783). The previous day, a preliminary treaty had been signed with representatives of the States General of the Dutch Republic, but the final treaty which ended the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was not signed until 20 May 1784; for convenience, however, it is included in the summaries below. The British lost their Thirteen Colonies and the defeat marked the end of the First British Empire. The United States gained more than it expected, thanks to the award of western territory.[1] The other Allies had mixed-to-poor results. France won a propaganda victory over Britain after its defeat in the Seven Years War, however its material gains were minimal and its financial losses huge. It was already in financial trouble and its borrowing to pay for the war used up all its credit and created the financial disasters that marked the 1780s. Historians link those disasters to the coming of the French Revolution. The Dutch did not gain anything of significant value at the end of the war. The Spanish had a mixed result; they did not achieve their primary war goal of recovering Gibraltar, but they did gain some territory. -
Attendees at George Washington's Resignation of His Commission Old Senate Chamber, Maryland State House, December 23
Attendees at George Washington’s Resignation of his Commission Old Senate Chamber, Maryland State House, December 23, 1783 Compiled by the Maryland State Archives, February 2009 Known attendees: George Washington Thomas Mifflin, President of the Congress Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Congress Other known attendees: Members of the Governor and Council of Maryland. Specific members are not identified; full membership listed below Members of the government of the City of Annapolis. Specific members are not identified; full membership listed below Henry Harford, former Proprietor of Maryland Sir Robert Eden, former governor Those who attended who wrote about the ceremony in some detail: Dr. James McHenry, Congressman and former aide to Washington Mollie Ridout Dr. James Tilton, Congressman There was a “gallery full of ladies” (per Mollie Ridout), most of whom are unknown Members of the Maryland General Assembly The General Assembly was in Session on December 23, and both houses convened in the State House on December 22 and on December 23. It is difficult to identify specific individuals who were in the Senate Chamber GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1783 William Paca, governor November 3-December 26, 1783 SENATE WESTERN James McHenry EASTERN Edward Lloyd SHORE SHORE George Plater Daniel Carroll, Matthew John Cadwalader (E, president ' Tilghman Dcl) Thomas Stone Richard Barnes ' (DNS, R) Robert Goldsborough (DNS) (E, Charles Carroll of Benedict Edward Hall John Henry DNS) Carrollton, Samuel Hughes William Hindman William Perry (E) president ' John Smith Josiah Polk (DNS) HOUSE OF DELEGATES ST MARY'S John Dent, of John CECIL Nathan Hammond William Somerville BALTIMORE Archibald Job Thomas Ogle John DeButts Thomas Cockey Deye, Samuel Miller HARFORD Edmund Plowden speaker William Rowland Benjamin Bradford Norris Philip Key Charles Ridgely, of Benjamin Brevard John Love William KENT John Stevenson ANNAPOLIS John Taylor (DNS) Peregrine Lethrbury Charles Ridgely Allen Quynn Ignatius Wheeler, Jr. -
Marriage Record Index 1922-1938 Images Can Be Accessed in the Indiana Room
Marriage Record Index 1922-1938 Images can be accessed in the Indiana Room. Call (812)949-3527 for more information. Groom Bride Marriage Date Image Aaron, Elza Antle, Marion 8/12/1928 026-048 Abbott, Charles Ruby, Hallie June 8/19/1935 030-580 Abbott, Elmer Beach, Hazel 12/9/1922 022-243 Abbott, Leonard H. Robinson, Berta 4/30/1926 024-324 Abel, Oscar C. Ringle, Alice M. 1/11/1930 027-067 Abell, Lawrence A. Childers, Velva 4/28/1930 027-154 Abell, Steve Blakeman, Mary Elizabeth 12/12/1928 026-207 Abernathy, Pete B. Scholl, Lorena 10/15/1926 024-533 Abram, Howard Henry Abram, Elizabeth F. 3/24/1934 029-414 Absher, Roy Elgin Turner, Georgia Lillian 4/17/1926 024-311 Ackerman, Emil Becht, Martha 10/18/1927 025-380 Acton, Dewey Baker, Mary Cathrine 3/17/1923 022-340 Adam, Herman Glen Harpe, Mary Allia 4/11/1936 031-273 Adam, Herman Glenn Hinton, Esther 8/13/1927 025-282 Adams, Adelbert Pope, Thelma 7/14/1927 025-255 Adams, Ancil Logan, Jr. Eiler, Lillian Mae 4/8/1933 028-570 Adams, Cecil A. Johnson, Mary E. 12/21/1923 022-706 Adams, Crozier E. Sparks, Sarah 4/1/1936 031-250 Adams, Earl Snook, Charlotte 1/5/1935 030-250 Adams, Harry Meyer, Lillian M. 10/21/1927 025-376 Adams, Herman Glen Smith, Hazel Irene 2/28/1925 023-502 Adams, James O. Hallet, Louise M. 4/3/1931 027-476 Adams, Lloyd Kirsch, Madge 6/7/1932 028-274 Adams, Robert A. -
H. Doc. 108-222
34 Biographical Directory DELEGATES IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS CONNECTICUT Dates of Attendance Andrew Adams............................ 1778 Benjamin Huntington................ 1780, Joseph Spencer ........................... 1779 Joseph P. Cooke ............... 1784–1785, 1782–1783, 1788 Jonathan Sturges........................ 1786 1787–1788 Samuel Huntington ................... 1776, James Wadsworth....................... 1784 Silas Deane ....................... 1774–1776 1778–1781, 1783 Jeremiah Wadsworth.................. 1788 Eliphalet Dyer.................. 1774–1779, William S. Johnson........... 1785–1787 William Williams .............. 1776–1777 1782–1783 Richard Law............ 1777, 1781–1782 Oliver Wolcott .................. 1776–1778, Pierpont Edwards ....................... 1788 Stephen M. Mitchell ......... 1785–1788 1780–1783 Oliver Ellsworth................ 1778–1783 Jesse Root.......................... 1778–1782 Titus Hosmer .............................. 1778 Roger Sherman ....... 1774–1781, 1784 Delegates Who Did Not Attend and Dates of Election John Canfield .............................. 1786 William Hillhouse............. 1783, 1785 Joseph Trumbull......................... 1774 Charles C. Chandler................... 1784 William Pitkin............................. 1784 Erastus Wolcott ...... 1774, 1787, 1788 John Chester..................... 1787, 1788 Jedediah Strong...... 1782, 1783, 1784 James Hillhouse ............... 1786, 1788 John Treadwell ....... 1784, 1785, 1787 DELAWARE Dates of Attendance Gunning Bedford, -
Treaty of Paris 1783
Apendices:Preliminares e indice 10/19/09 1:08 PM Page 139 Treaty of Paris 1783 Con este tratado se puso fin a la Guerra entre Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña, quien reconoció la independencia de las Trece Colonias. Se firmó en el hôtel d’York, ubicado en el 56 de la rue Jacob, en París, el 3 de septiembre de ese año. Fue ratificado posteriormente por el Congreso de Anápolis. In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most po- tent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lune- bourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may pro- mote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be con- cluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not -
Mr. Jefferson's Sickle: Thomas Worthington and The
Mr. Jefferson’s Sickle: Thomas Worthington and the Implementation of the Agrarian Republic Research Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with research distinction in History in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University By Joseph T. Ross The Ohio State University March 2015 Project Advisor: Professor John L. Brooke, Department of History Committee Member: Professor Lucy M. Murphy, Department of History Committee Member: Professor Andrew R. L. Cayton, Miami University Ross 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..3 Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………………...4 The Jeffersonian Commonwealth: An Introduction………………………………………………6 Chapter 1: “Fair Objects of Speculation:” Land Companies and Oligarchy…………………….18 Chapter 2: “A Very Great Quantity of Land Has Been Sold:” Harringtonian Land Reform……44 Chapter 3: “A Government of Our Own Choice:” Democratization and Deliberation………….74 Epilogue: “An Incapacity to Bear Up Any Other Than Free Men”…………………………….101 Ross 3 Acknowledgements There are a lot of people who I am grateful towards for helping me to conduct this project. First I would like to thank Nathaniel Swigger for his help in securing two Ohio State Newark Student Research Grants, which I utilized to conduct and present this research. I was also the recipient of one of Ohio State’s 2014 Undergraduate Research Office Summer Research Fellowships, which provided the means for much of the research. During my trips both in and out of state I met many wonderful people -
American Historians and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution| an Historiographical Study
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1974 American historians and the diplomacy of the American Revolution| An historiographical study Laurie Joy Wood The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Wood, Laurie Joy, "American historians and the diplomacy of the American Revolution| An historiographical study" (1974). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1510. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1510 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN HISTORIANS AND THE DIPLOMACY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: AN HISTORIOGRAPHICAL STUDY By Laurie Joy Wood B.A., Principia College, 1972 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1974 Approved by: Chairman, Board of Examiners Djg^an"^ Gi>^duate School /y/ H7X. Date UMI Number; EP36207 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT UMI EP36207 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). -
John Jay and the Treaty of Paris
John Jay and the Treaty of Paris John Jay’s role in ending the American Revolution is perhaps his most important accomplishment. For the Americans, the war for independence was about rights – no taxation without representation, and so forth. For the principal nations of Europe, however, the situation was about money and power. Colonies channeled enormous wealth into their parent nations. Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth, and it derived much of its might from its American resources. The Declaration of Independence was an act of great courage. Our economic and governmental systems had been completely reliant on England. Success in breaking away would have been impossible without the help of at least one comparable superpower, to be a trading partner and a source of military and economic aid. France was the obvious nation to approach. France’s wars with England had dominated the eighteenth century, and it was only too happy for a chance to cut its principal adversary down to size. The French loaned the Patriots money, sold them armaments, and sent troops and battleships to the fighting. France’s help to the Americans inevitably led to direct conflict between Britain and France, and those countries soon declared war on each other. France wasn’t the only country that wanted revenge against England. Spain had lost Gibraltar to it in 1713, and Florida in 1763. The kings of Spain and France were cousins, and agreed to help each other fight the British. The French navy assisted Spain in trying to take back Gibraltar, and the Spanish helped the French in their war in return.