The Declaration of Independence and the Pursuit of Happiness

Now, as another July 4th approaches, it behooves us to consider what the holiday commemorates. In the late days of June, 1776, more than a year into the American Revolution Thomas Jefferson hastily wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, which was modified by and revised by others. Finally, on July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously signed the document. Despite the dominance of the British Empire and their imminent capture of New York City, the Declaration
severed all ties between Great Britain and the thirteen American colonies. (Or so the Americans maintained. But it would take another six years before we forced the British to their knees.)

Most famously, the document pronounces mankind's "natural" right of personal liberty, the notion, introduced by British philosopher John Locke a century earlier, that man is born into a state of freedom, and thus cannot be governed by a monarch. Government, says the document, exists only to serve man and laws can only be passed with the consent of the governed.

In the most famous portion of the document, the signatories assert that "We hold these truths to be self-evident/ that all men are created equal/ that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Emphasis added.)

What did they mean by the phrase "pursuit of happiness, a phrase that survived a number of drafts?"

In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke maintains that mankind possesses the right to "life, health, liberty and property" (Emphasis added.)  Why did we Americans alter this set of rights to include the "pursuit of happiness?"

As literary scholar Carol Hamilton has argued, Locke used the phrase elsewhere, writing in another essay, that "the necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty."

But "happiness," as used at the time, did not mean the gratification of our emotional needs and demands. Writes James R. Rogers, professor of political science at Texas A&M,  "[i]t meant prosperity…well-being…the right to meet physical needs [and included] a significant moral and religious dimension."

Note, too, that happiness itself is not guaranteed, but rather "its pursuit." Writes James R. Rogers: "'The pursuit of happiness' means … occupying one's life with the activities that provide for overall wellbeing. This certainly includes a right to material things, but it goes beyond that to include humanity's spiritual and moral condition."

Like the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence asserts that government must step out of  our way.

But we live in an era in which everyone, including multi-billion dollar corporations, demands that government provide them with instant gratification. It is time to remember the philosophies of our Founding Fathers and limit the size and reach of  our massive federal government.

Benedict Arnold: Did the Americans Know About His Proposed Treachery Before His Defection?

Upon learning of the defection one of his favorite generals, Benedict Arnold, General George Washington openly wept in shock.

But Arnold's defection should not have surprised Washington. According to the historical record, the evidence had been there since Arnold, who'd pleaded with Washington for a post at West Point, first assumed command of this important area of defense.   In a pointed letter, Benjamin Talmadge, head of the Culper spy ring, chastised the would-be-traitor for the forts'  general state of disrepair, warning him of the opportunity its vulnerabilities presented to the British, who long had coveted this key spot on the Hudson,, which, if captured, would enable the Empire to sever the connection among many of the provinces. 

Surely, Talmadge must have wondered why Arnold allowed West Point to lapse. Did it not cross the spy's mind that the disgruntled general might be purposely undermining the defenses? Why did he not tell Washington, his immediate supervisor, about the state of West Point? 

Jews in Colonial America: Why They Were tolerated, Even Welcomed.

No religious group had it worse in Colonial America than Catholics, who faced an outright ban on the open worship of their religion. The thirteen Protestant colonies feared the bloodshed that occurred in Europe during the Reformation and Counter-reformation periods. By contrast, Catholics were explicitly tolerated in British Canada--in large part because the wily British Parliament sought to drive a wedge between the 13 colonies and their northern neighbor.


But nowhere did Jews have it better than during the colonial period in America. Why? All through history, Jews had been tortured, killed or expelled from their so-called homelands. Gradually finding their way to the North American colonies circa 1654, they were originally rejected by New York City (New Amsterdam) mayor Peter Stuyvesant. But his Dutch superiors convinced him that by trading with their co-religionists throughout the diaspora, Jews would bring prosperity. Jews, who over time settled primarily in port cities (New York, Philadelphia, Newport, Savannah, Charleston), contributed mightily to commerce.


Not a single restrictive law was passed against the Jew in British America. In most colonies, Jews could not hold public office, a ban enforced by requiring Christian oaths. Jews were also far too few in number vex the anti-semites. At around the time of the American Revolution there were between 1,000-2,500 Jews in the 13 colonies out of an overall population of more than 3 million. Many were wealthy, outstanding citizens. Because of their mercantilism, they tended to side with the rebels during the Revolution and thus were signatories of various non-import agreements. Though only a small number served in the military, several as officers, Jews contributed financially to the revolution by generously supplying funds, ammunitions and provisions. 


In the 1790s, George Washington sent out letters to congregations in Philadelphia, Newport and elsewhere expressing honor and respect for Jews. Though anti-semiticism later followed--especially with the influx of European Jews in the 1800s-- colonial America was a safe haven for the Jews. Little wonder they kept arriving from all over the world.

A Historical Novel About Jews During the American Revolution: The fine 'art' of revision

A Historical Novel About Jews During the American Revolution: The fine 'art' of revision: Am slogging through the manuscript now, generating second draft by the "drop dead" deadline of November 1. Next step: send it around to read...

The fine 'art' of revision

Am slogging through the manuscript now, generating second draft by the "drop dead" deadline of November 1. Next step: send it around to readers, then do another draft incorporating their comments. After that, the agent. Scary stuff.

Sometimes revision can be pure joy,  a wonderful feeling of improving on what's already written, like adding a vase of fresh flowers to a dreary room. Sometimes it's pure drudgery, though: making sure that someone's who's been sitting isn't suddenly standing up without my having mentioned it, etc. Then there's the surgical incision of paragraphs that "don't work." Today, once again, chopped off some of the novel's beginning. Have to make sure to capture reader's attention from first page, there being so much competition these days for our attention.

The main point of this revision is the plot line, maintaining  suspense as my heroine, Rebecca, balances her love for the British officer she's been spying on --Major John Andre--against the rebels' need for military intelligence. And then the grand finale when she learns that an American general, known only as "Monk," is about to defect to the British. But she can do nothing, unable to discover his identity. Then comes disaster....

Will be really interesting to finally get reactions from those who've volunteered to read the manuscript. Thus far, my friend Sally has read each and every version, my husband only the beginning sections. It's weird to toil away every day on a work without knowing whether I've pulled it off. Guess I'll find out soon.

A Historical Novel About Jews During the American Revolution: Kayaking on Lake Champlain: A Whiff of History

A Historical Novel About Jews During the American Revolution: Kayaking on Lake Champlain: A Whiff of History: During a lovely, solo, kayak ride on Lake Champlain today, it stuck me that I was immersed in the very geography that proved so vital to th...

Kayaking on Lake Champlain: A Whiff of History

During a lovely, solo, kayak ride on Lake Champlain today, it stuck me that I was immersed in the very geography that proved so vital to the American Revolution, the subject of my novel.

The route along the Hudson River in, to Lake George, then  Lake Champlain -- with several portages (land interruptions) in between-- is essentially one long watery way from NYC to Quebec. Its capture was always at the forefront of British strategy: by holding any point along the way, they could easily transfer their troops between Canada and New York, block American supply lines, divide the Northern and Southern colonies.

This is what made Benedict Arnold's defection so dangerous. In 1780, before his treason was known, he pleaded with George Washington to be given command of West Point, a key fort on the Hudson along this passage to Canada. While working secretly for the Brits, Arnold intentionally kept the fort in disarray and passed military secrets about the point onto the British who, but for the discovery of the treason, might have likely seized West Point, the entire NYC- to- Quebec waterway and won the Revolution.

For more, see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Champlain    

First Draft Completed!!!

And now the hard part: revision. It's particularly tough to weed out one's own words, especially if you're "in love" with them. But out they must go because they can--and often do--  impede the flow of the story, even if otherwise lyrical.

I examine pace. This is a very suspenseful story--imagine being a rebel spy in love with the British officer she's spying on.  And THEN becoming privy to one of the biggest plots in American history: the defection of Benedict Arnold. On top of that, the heroine, Rebecca, lives in constant fear that, if discovered, she'll be caught and hung. Ironically, her lover, ( a historical figure) is Major John Andre, spymaster for the British! The suspense must be modulated; the reader can't be racing all the time, though of course he/she should be flipping the pages quickly. But there's a need for occasional "rest stops" along the way for everyone--the reader, the characters--to take a deep breath before the next crisis.

And then, of course, there's the language.  Without resorting to cliches, it's not so simple to describe a sunset or a tree or a person or an emotion. I'm constantly having to come up with unique descriptions--perceptions--of ordinary things.  So I'm working on the next draft and, after that,  likely several more.

A Historical Novel About Jews During the American Revolution: Congregation Mikveh Israel: The Spanish-Portuguese...

A Historical Novel About Jews During the American Revolution: Congregation Mikveh Israel: The Spanish-Portuguese...: " In historic Philadelphia, just blocks from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, stands a modest red brick building. Unlike the be..."

Congregation Mikveh Israel: The Spanish-Portuguese Influence of America's Early Jews

  

In historic Philadelphia, just blocks from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, stands a modest red brick building.  Unlike the better-known historic sites, Congregation Mikveh Israel, a Sephardic Congregation at 44 North 4^th Street, tells the history of a miniscule group of refugees who arrived in America not long after the Pilgrims.

After Portugal re-conquered Brazil from the Dutch in 1654, twenty-three men, women and children fled Recife, Brazil for New York City, becoming the first Jews to set foot on American soil. All were descended from the victims of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions that, in 1492 and 1497, expelled the Jews, and charged that certain conversos –forced converts to Christianity --were  “Crypto Jews,” who secretively practiced Judaism. Many conversos escaped. Their primary destination was Amsterdam, Dutch-occupied Brazil and the Dutch West Indies. Others settled in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire; still others in England and other European countries.

 Over the next half-century, more of the “the Sephardic Diaspora” –sometimes vaguely referred to as the “Portuguese Hebrew Nation” --joined their fellows in America.  But by 1700, their migration ceased. The American Jewish demographic changed, as Jews from Germany, Poland and other parts of eastern and central Europe –Ashkenazim--set sail for America shores. By 1720, they outnumbered Jews from the Iberian Peninsula. Still, the Ashkenazim observed the traditions of the Spanish-Portuguese until 1801 when a group broke off to form the first Ashkenazi synagogue in America, Philadelphia’s Rodeph Shalom.

  Led by Nathan Levy, scion of a prominent New York merchant clan, in the 1730s Jews from New York began to migrate to Philadelphia, then the largest city in the American colonies, pulsing with commerce.  By 1740, as recounted in Jacob R. Marcus’ three-volume work, “The Colonial American Jew,” about a dozen Jews began to worship in a private home; by 1770, Philadelphia’s Jewish community had grown to about 300, less than one percent of the city’s total population. With the outbreak of the American Revolution, as refugees from other cities flooded Philadelphia, the congregation, now formally named Mikveh Israel, grew to at least 500. The congregation had no rabbi—rabbis did not come to America until 1840 -or officiator until the arrival in 1780 of its first hazzan, Gershom Mendes Seixas, formerly of New York.

 Though the congregation adhered to the Spanish Portuguese tradition, Mikveh Israel’s most notable congregants were Ashkenazim.   Bernard Gratz, born in Silesia (now Poland), became its parnas (president).  Prominent members included Polish-born Haym Salomon, financier of the American Revolution and the philanthropic Rebecca Gratz, daughter of Michael Gratz.  They are buried in Mikveh Israel’s Spruce Street synagogue, a national historic site, along with Jewish patriots of the American Revolution.

Today, the Spanish-Portuguese are a dwindling subset of the Sephardic community, itself a sliver of American Jewry, representing between 4 and 8 percent of the Jewish population, according to the American Sephardi Federation. “Once used exclusively to refer to Jews from Spain and Portugal and their descendants, the term ‘Sephardic’ today encompasses Jews from North Africa, the Middle East and Asia—basically anyone who isn’t Ashkenazi,” says Devin Naar, professor of history and Jewish Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Although there are some variations, Sephardic synagogues are generally similar in layout. Seating is divided, with each half facing the other. The women are separated in the Orthodox tradition, seated behind the mechitza in the back rows or on a balcony. The reading desk rests in the middle or back of the room, rather than in the front. Most Sephardic synagogues use the prayer book of the Spanish Portuguese, but absent from the Spanish-Portuguese liturgy is any reference to the Kabala, used generally by the Eastern Sephardim. 

Mikveh Israel’s furnishings reflect the majesty of its traditions. The chandelier is a replica of the many that hang from the ceiling of Amsterdam’s Portuguese Synagogue, the “mother congregation” of the Spanish Portuguese.  The reading table is perched on a white marble platform, bordered on each side by two tall silver candlesticks. Nineteen Torah scrolls are wrapped in cloth, adorned with silver breastplates, crowns and bells, some crafted in the 1770s by Myer Myer, the great silversmith.

The congregation’s current membership, about 250 families, reflects the growing diversity of American Jewry. Most are Ashkenazim, drawn to the congregation because, “its unchanged traditions are lovely,” says member Betta Kolansky. Among the Sephardim, most hail from Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Gibraltar and Cuba; few, if any, are Spanish Portuguese. A number are African-American who were either born to Judaism or have converted.

Despite the changing demographic of the American Jew, Mikveh Israel remains faithful to the customs and liturgy of Spanish-Portuguese. That tradition, says its rabbi, Albert Gabbai, represents the “nobility of the Sephardim,” using the best Hebrew pronunciation, adhering to practices that are  “exact, correct, orderly, on time, striving for perfection, dignity, and gravitas.”  

Guest Blogger: Spanish woman discovers that she's part Jewish, descended from Conversos

LUCENA, A CITY OF JEWS  by Adelaida Lucena de Lower

On Sunday afternoons my father, a librarian, would often sit in our living room, browsing the pages of encyclopedias, reading entries here and there. I knew better than asking him the meaning of a word.

 “Look it up,” he would unfailingly say. I don’t remember how we came to discuss our last name, Lucena. I thought it was Arabic, not a stretch, considering that we come from the south of Spain. 

“Lucena is not Arabic,” my father told me. “Somos Judíos. Somos muy Judíos,” We are Jews. We are very much Jews. The notion seemed so foreign and odd, I did not buy it. “Look it up,” he said.

It so happened that shortly after this, in 1992, Spain celebrated the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the Americas, paired up with the acknowledgment and remembrance of another event of 1492, the expulsion of the Jews. That year, there were all sorts of exhibitions and publications honoring the contributions of Spanish Jews. I was living in Rio de Janeiro at the time and had befriended a Sephardic Jew, the wife of the Consul General of the Netherlands, who invited me to one such gathering. There, she introduced me to the writer of a book entitled, Raices Judías en España, Spanish Roots in Spain. Upon hearing my last name, the writer replied, “Oh, one of us.” I was stunned.

It did not take a lot of digging to discover that my father was right, Lucena was a Jewish name. In fact, his family was of Jewish ancestry on both sides, descendants of Converso Jews who did not leave Spain in 1492 but stayed, having converted to Catholicism. My grandfather, Emilio Lucena, came from the province of Cόrdoba, Spain, where his ancestors lived in a city that still bears our name. 

Lucena is the Castilian form of Eliossana, Eli ossana, from the Hebrew אלי הושענא, meaning “God Saves Us.” Christian sources and Sephardic lore ascribe the foundation of the city of Lucena to the descendants of Japhet, a son of Noah. In fact, two of Japhet’s grandsons are supposed to have come to Spain. Tarshish gave Spain its biblical name, later Hellenized as Tartessos. Eliossana or Lucena is derived from Tarshish’s brother, Elisa or Elisha. There are even tales claiming that the patriarch Noah is buried near Lucena, in a mountain we call Mt. Aras, our very own Ararat.

Strategically located at the crossroads of Andalusia, amidst olive groves, Lucena was labeled “The Pearl of Sefarad” and “The Lost Jerusalem.” The medieval city played a central and unique role in Sephardic culture. Most Spanish cities had Jewish quarters, the so called Juderías. Lucena, however, was entirely populated and governed by Jews, its inhabitants having bought their freedom. The Muslims who ruled over much of Spain at that time, referred to it as Al-Yussana Ay-Yahudi, Lucena of the Jews.

Until the 10^th ACE all existing yeshivas were in the Middle East. Lucena had the first European yeshiva and grew to be a beacon of Jewish learning and Talmudic studies. Isaac ibn Gayyat was its first gaon. Maimonides’s father is supposed to have attended the Lucena school. In the twelfth century, the invasion of the Almohads, a Berberic tribe from the North of Africa, marked the end of Lucena’s independence. The population was forcibly converted to Islam. Many fled and took up residence in Toledo. Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra wrote about the destruction. “My eyes cry for the city of Lucena…The tears of my eyes cry for a city free from stain…its people have been left as widows, orphans of the Law, without Scripture, the Midrash sealed, the Talmud sterile, the splendor gone…” Ferdinand the III, King of Castile, conquered Lucena in 1240, ending Muslim domination. Some Jewish exiles returned at that point. It is not clear how many Jews lived in the city by 1490. Sixty years later, the census records 15,000 inhabitants. By then, the people of Lucena were Christians and descendants of Conversos.

I have no idea whether my father’s ancestors were anusim, forced Converts to Christianity who kept their faith hidden, or whether they belonged to the ranks of the mesumad, who converted freely. From what I have learned, it really did not matter. One way or the other, Conversos were tainted by ‘the infamy of their Jewish blood.’ What is certain—because the Inquisition kept exacting records—is that the Lucenas suffered persecution. Some opted for exile, went to Portugal and fared no better. Several died at the stake, victims of religious and racial prejudice and intolerance.

“What’s in a name?” Shakespeare’s heroine wonders dismissingly; a rose is supposed to smell as fragrant with any other name. I could not disagree more. It does matter what a name means, where it comes from, and what it connotes. The story of Lucena and of the Lucenas have yielded a trove of history and legend, lost voices that revealed a forgotten inheritance and connections to roots buried deep in the soil of my country. These roots have illuminated pages of the past for me. Because of them, I no longer see that past in the same light.  

 Adelaida Lucena de Lower is revising a novel on 15 century Spain and the world of Conversos.

Jewish Settlers to America, Part II

Fifty years after the first Jews settled in New York, waves of immigration increased their numbers as  members of  “the Sephardic Diaspora” --Spanish-Portuguese Jews who had originally settled in Europe after the Inquisitions--also sailed to North American shores.


Before the outbreak of the American Revolution, Jews  represented no more than 2,500 of the colonial population of 3 million. Yet, despite their paltry numbers, they had succeeded in creating  ccongregations in New York, Philadelphia, Newport, Richmond, Charleston and Savannah, all modeled on the Spanish-Portuguese traditions that, with the exception of New York and Philadelphia, they have long since been abandoned.


By 1700, immigration patterns began to alter the Jewish demographic of the American colonies.  The  Spanish Portuguese remained in Europe where many built powerful dynasties, while Jewish immigrants  from Germany, Poland and other parts of eastern and central Europe accelerated. By 1720 Ashkenazis outnumbered Jews with roots to the Iberian Peninsula.  Before the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, Jews, who represented no more than 2,500 of the colonial population of 3 million, had already created congregations in New York, Philadelphia, Newport, Richmond, Charleston and Savannah, all modeled on the Spanish-Portuguese tradition. The Ashkenazis, with customs and a language (Yiddish)  of their own, were active in the affairs of these synagogues, observing their customs. But tensions grew. In 1801, a group broke off from Philadelphia's Congregation Mitveh Israel to form  Rodeph Shalom, the first Ashkenazi synagogue in the United States.

Guest Blogger: Tegan Kehoe on the Declaration of Independence

That the People May be Universally Informed of It: Reactions to the Declaration of Independence, 1776.
by Tegan Kehoe

Two hundred and thirty-five years ago today, on July 4th, 1776, the United States of America was born. Or was it? Many ideas that inspired the founding of the country had been around for centuries, and the Revolutionary War would not end until 1783. The Continental Congress decided to approve the Declaration on July 2, leading John Adams to write, “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival.”[1][2] Today, of course, Americans celebrate Independence Day on July 4, the day that Congress actually voted on and approved the document, and even at the time, people recognized it as a greatly symbolic occasion. All across the newly-declared country, people celebrated as the news was spread, and those celebrations, too, came over a period of time, so it could be said that America's first Fourth of July lasted for several weeks.

After the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock was responsible for distributing it. He sent a printed copy to each of the states and to General Washington.[3] With it, Hancock sent a letter explaining that Congress had decided that declaring independence was their only real option.[4] The letter also required the states and the military to determine ways to spread the news of the Declaration, “that the people may be universally informed of it.”[5]

Each state came up with their own way of proclaiming independence. Pennsylvania sent copies by express rider to places where elections were about to be held. Virginia ordered each sheriff to give a public reading of the Declaration at the door of his courthouse. In Rhode Island, it was read at town meetings. Several states left it up to the towns to decide how to make the Declaration known, but passed on the order to make the news as public as possible.[6] But many American people did not need government orders to spread the word. Many of the signers distributed copies to friends, family, and political colleagues before the public announcements were made.[7] Additionally, the Declaration of Independence was published in over thirty newspapers within a month of its completion, often on the front page. In New York, printer John Holt gave the Declaration its own sheet within his newspaper, saying his customers would want to hang it in their homes. Printers also sold the Declaration as a broadside, which is a printing on one side of a sheet of paper like a poster or flier.[8]

Both the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the rhetoric used to express them were very familiar to most American colonists by 1776. Many colonists could read, and they had been exposed to the Declaration's ideas over and over in the preceding years. Between 1750 and 1766, more than four hundred separate pamphlets about the controversy between Britain and its American colonies were published in the colonies.[9] Many were stand-alone opinion essays, but some appeared as annual series, commemorating events such as the repeal of the Stamp Act.[10] Pamphlets sold for about a shilling, so they were affordable enough to reach wide audiences.[11] Newspapers were another way that Patriots (and Loyalists, those who sided with the Crown) spread their beliefs, and people who could not read often learned what was in the newspapers from friends or neighbors. Additionally, it was not at all uncommon for ministers to impart messages about liberty, rights, and even current events during church services.[12] Between all of these media, colonists had no shortage of exposure to patriotic language and themes.

The rhetoric of the revolution drew upon the European Enlightenment, Greek and Roman writers, and English legal thought.[13] Even grammar school students could reference the Classics, although their understanding was often superficial. Newspaper publishers and pamphleteers were very selective in the quotes they used, making well-known sources serve their purposes. In fact, the two sides, Patriot and Loyalist, had a similar repertoire, from the English law commentator William Blackstone to literary uses of the Roman statesman Cato the Younger.[14]

All of this meant that at public readings, whether they were in churches, government buildings, or common greens, the people knew what they were listening to, and they reacted to it. While fireworks were not a part of the festivities in 1776, many people placed lit candles in all of their windows, and several celebrations included rifle salutes or bonfires.[15] In Boston, the Declaration was read from the balcony of the Town House (now called the Old State House) to a crowd of people gathered on what was then called King street – that day, it was changed to State Street, and the name is still used. Originally, Sheriff William Greenleaf was scheduled to make the oration, but he was so quiet that Colonel Thomas Crafts had to assist with his booming voice. After the reading was complete, the people had a celebratory riot, including a bonfire in the middle of the street. The people tore down and burned any symbol of Great Britain they could find, from small wooden crowns used as ornaments to the lion and unicorn statues that had stood nearly eight feet tall atop the three-story building.[16] Philadelphia also had a bonfire by their State House, but burned smaller symbols.[17]

Perhaps the only city that can top Boston was Huntington, Long Island, where the people created an effigy of King George III and lined its cloak with gunpowder. The effigy was then exploded and burned.[18] The people of Baltimore also made an effigy of King George III, but they burned it the conventional way, without explosives.[19] Since the body of the Declaration is made up of a list of the king's abuses, with language like, “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people,” it is no wonder that he was the target of symbolic destruction. In New York city, the people tore down a lead statue of the king mounted on a horse. It had been put up only six years earlier. One newspaper declared that the statue “laid prostrate in the dirt... the just deserts of an ungrateful tyrant!” and noted that the lead was going to be made into bullets, “to assimilate with the brains of our adversaries.”[20]

Riotous celebrations of the Declaration of Independence took place all over the new country; however, a significant number of the celebrations were formal, decorous, and downright stately. Many of the more organized observances were those done by militias. On July 8, the reading for the New Jersey Provincial Congress and locally stationed troops took place in Trenton, New Jersey. Newspaper accounts described the event as a “great and solemn occasion,” and the people received the news with “loud acclamations” rather than fiery displays.[21] Newport, Rhode Island also combined a civil reading with an event for the brigade stationed there, which included a round of thirteen cannon shots at Fort Liberty and gunshots in thirteen divisions. According to the newspapers, “The Declaration was received by joy and applause by all ranks. The whole was conducted with great solemnity and decorum.”[22] Perhaps those who were involved in military celebration had a deeper understanding of the fact that the war was now likely to last much longer. When there was hope of reconciliation with Britain, there had been hope of a short war.

Some colonists, both Loyalists and moderate Patriots, felt that the Declaration of Independence was timed poorly or that it was too extreme.[23] Many Loyalists also took it as a sign that they were no longer welcome in their home towns, especially if they lived in radical areas such as Boston, and some of them left for Canada or even for England. However, for many others, the Declaration of Independence was exciting, inspiring, and hopeful. As historian Bernard Bailyn put it, “By then Americans had come to think of themselves as a special category, uniquely placed by history to capitalize on, to complete and fulfill, the promise of man's existence.”[24] In other words, many people truly believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they believed, rightly or wrongly, that this new country could truly deliver these things to its citizens.

****
Tegan Kehoe is a history writer and museum and non-profit professional, whose blog “Cambridge Considered: the colorful history of Cambridge, MA can be found at http://www.cambridgeconsidered.blogspot.com


[1]Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776, "Had a Declaration..." [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3 1776.
[2]A shout-out to my readers in Ithaca, NY, where the fireworks display is always a day or two before the Fourth. Perhaps we're on to something – beyond just avoiding competition with bigger displays!
[3]Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), 154.
[4]Maier 155.
[5]Quoted in Maier 155.
[6]Maier 158-9.
[7]Hazelton, John. The Declaration of Independence: Its History. (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1906. Reprint: New York, Da Capo Press, 1970), 220-222.
[8]Maier 159.
[9]Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged Edition. (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1992), 8.
[10]Bailyn 6.
[11]Bailyn 2.
[12]Bailyn xi.
[13]Bailyn 27-30.
[14]Bailyn 25.
[15]Maier 157.
[16]Hitchings, Sinclair and Catherine F. Hitchings. Theatre of Liberty: Boston's Old State House. (Boston: Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, 1975).
[17]How the Declaration was Received. New York Times. July 4, 1871.
[18]Maier 158.
[19]How the Declaration was Received. New York Times. July 4, 1871.
[20]American or Constitutional Gazette: the Journal. Vol. I No. 6 July 23, 1776.
[21]Dunlap's Pennsylvania Packet, or The General Advertiser. Vol. V No. 247, July 15, 1776.
[22]Pennsylvania Evening Post, Vol. II No. 239, August 1, 1776.
[23]Hazelton 224.
[24] Bailyn 20.

Others British Views on the Declaration of Independence

"I take the view that the whole thing was for the future good of Western Civilization...What would have happened if the American rebellion had not succeeded? No Louisiana Purchase, a third of North America would have been French and most of the rest would have belonged to Spain. Just imagine. Even if the Colonies had eventually been granted Dominion status as was given to Canada and Australia and New Zealand, that dominion would have been nothing like the United States as it is today. You can talk of luck and chance - and "Manifest Destiny" if you like, but I believe that the United States had to be, for all its mistakes and faults in the past 50 years, or longer, it is the main bulwark of the Western World. We in Britain should be grateful. I write as someone who well remembers world war 2. I am of the "Got any Gum Chum?" generation, though I never actually uttered those words myself."

And here's another post by British novelist Trevor Bloom:


If the American revolution had not happened, it is quite probable that America would be like Canada or Australia today, (or even South Africa and India) ie fiercely independent and democratic nations which retain strong political and emotional ties to the mother country. It's not such a big deal, as any Canadian or New Zealander would agree. Americans have developed a powerful set of mythologies to sustain the righteousness of thei rebellion, but most non-Americans would be hard pushed to say what the US has in terms of economic or political freedoms that Canada or Australia don't have.

From another British contributor:

Happy 4th of July everybody! What happened happened. There were many reasons why it happened and many explanations how the Americano - Franco alliance of convenience prevailed, which will no doubt be debated long into the future, including no doubt in this very forum. Had the matter been decided by plebiscite vote rather than force of arms it would have probably been closer than Pres. G. W. Bush's two elections. But that was back in the latter 18th century. Yes, the Brits and the Yanks (only don't call our Southerners that, esp. my South Carolina belle bride) "duked" (forgive the pun) it out twice, the last time not quite two full centuries ago. In the last century and a tenth, however, Tommy Atkins and G.I. Joe have fought as comrades vice formen, against the Chinese "Boxers" in China, the Boche in WW-I, the Nazis, Eyeties and Japanese in WW-II, the NKPA and PLA in Korea, and the Iraqis (twice), AQI, and Taliban and their ilk in SWA for the last 20 years. I consider the ANZAC participation with us in 'Nam against the VC and the NVA/PAVN to have been the "British" contribution to that conflict/campaign. That's a lot more combat time as friends than as foes. Nowadays in the early 21st century, I consider the Anglo-American "special relationship" to be the last "great white hope" of Western, Christian, democratic, free society against the renewed onslaught of an alien, hostile religion, culture and lifestyle. So on this 4th of July 2011 this Hiberno-Yank says, "Happy 4th of July," "God bless America" and "God save the queen"

America's First Jewish Settlers, Part I: Jews from Spain and Portugal

In September, 1654, on a warm sunny day, a ship known as the St. Catherine unloaded a group of refugees from Recife, Brazil onto the soil of Dutch-ruled New Amsterdam, the current New York City. Among these new immigrants, four men, six women and thirteen children were different from their shipmates: They were self-professing Jews. (Though this group of twenty-three is generally touted as the "first" Jews on American soil, in fact a handful of their co-religionists had preceded then, mostly Jewish traders from Dutch Brazil and the West Indies.)

This first group of Jews was not initially welcome on New York soil. Peter Stuyvesant, then governor or New Amsterdam protested to the Dutch West India Company that the new arrivals were a "deceitful race" whose "abominable religion worshipped at the feet of Mammon." Though permitted to remain, these Jews were not accorded any rights and could not build their own synagogue. This changed with the British conquest of 1664, the British governor decreeing that no legal disabilities should be visited upon a person "for differing in judgement in matters of religion." As per the ancient stereotype that has haunted Jews for millenia, British authorities valued Jews for their mercantile skills.

The story of the twenty-three Recife refugees and those that followed from the Dutch colonies and eventually Holland begins in the Iberian Peninsula, in Spain and Portugal, in the early 1400s.

Before that time, Jews had thrived for more than a thousand years of Muslim-Jewish co-existence in the Iberian peninsula. But this peace was shattered in the late 1300s when the Christians re-took Spain. Hundreds of Jews were slaughtered in anti-Jewish riots and thousands--later known as conversos--were forced to convert to Christianity. But even the threat of death could not stamp out the persistence of the Jewish faith. Some brave Jews, probably just a handful, remained openly Jewish, while among the conversos, many--the number is unknown-- continued to privately observe their faith. In 1492, the same year that Christopher Columbus set sail for "India," King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella formally expelled "all Jews and Jewesses of whatever age they might be" from their kingdom.

Spanish Jews then joined their co-religionists in Portugal, many of the conversos, relegating their faith to the "underground," passing their customs through the generations, privately observing Jewish rituals. But by 1497, these "Crypto-Jews" were likewise expelled by Portugal.

Among the hundreds of thousands expelled from Portugal, many of the exiled Jews fled into the welcoming arms of the Dutch, who valued the Jewish people--as per the age-old stereotype-- for their mercantile expertise, if not their religious practices. There, in tolerant Holland, these conversos built their own synagogue and, restored to their faith, "re-learned Judaism," some remarrying their spouses in Jewish ceremonies, others undergoing circumcision. Over time, as individual European countries began to "clamp" down on their own Jewish populations, Amsterdam became a mecca for still other fleeing Jews.

Among the Iberian Jews who sought refuge with the Dutch, a small group of settled in the Dutch "New World" colonies, such as Brazil. But that era was short-lived; on August 6, 1661, the Dutch surrendered Brazil to the Portuguese, once again forcing Jews to flee. Some settled in England, others in the Dutch settlements of Curacao and Cayenne, which promised religious tolerance.

But one group--the group of twenty-three--chose to head north to New Amsterdam. They, and the Jews of Spanish and Portuguese ancestry who later fled Europe came to be known as "Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation"--and later, as Sephardic Jews.

The Declaration of Independence--The British Point of View

With the approach of our great holiday, the Fourth of July, I thought it might be fun to explore how the British reacted to our grand document and its bold pronouncement that God gives each man the right of"natural liberty," that all men are created equal, that we are entitled to the pursuit of happiness--all rights, as the Founders saw it, incompatible with continued British sovereignty.

Bold as we Americans might view our Declaration, to the British it was one "great annoyance," says British-born Tim Pickles, a historical consultant at the History Channel. This, and a wanton display of ingratitude towards the very empire that had recently vanquished the French and Indians during that eponymous war (also known as the Seven Years' War), a struggle that left the British deeply in debt. Not only did we in the colonies refuse to help the Brits pay down their debt through taxes on items such as tea, we then had the audacity to declare that we were "dissolving the political bands" that united us to our great protector and to go on to list our many grievances against the very King who had long "protected" us.

Says Mr. Pickles: "I think it fair to say that the British and Loyalist reaction to the Declaration of Independence was a great annoyance at the self- serving ingratitude that lead Englishmen who had been happy to have the troops of the mother country sweep the threat of the French from the continent and keep troops on hand to protect the colonies from the possibilities of French or Spanish invasion, who nevertheless were unwilling to join the militia to protect themselves and balked at increased taxes to help pay for the protection which benefited them. This tough taxation in the colonies was half that in England."

As we Americans exalt and celebrate the great patriots who battled the British Empire, the British see them in a quite different light. Says Mr. Pickles: "The American revolution was for the most part engineered by self- seeking opportunists wearing a cloak of patriotism (the last refuge of a scoundrel)....

"Those who spoke of 'no taxation without representation never wanted representation, for they knew that if the colonies sent MPs to London on the same basis as all English counties they could be outvoted and have no way to speak of 'injustice'. Therefore they shouted of being denied their rights as Englishmen while making sure never to create the conditions under which those rights would be granted."

As for our ultimate victory? Mr. Pickles suggests that we Americans won our independence through brutal war tactics. He might have also added, as have other Brits, that our victory was due in large measure to the intervention of the French in 1777. On top of this, the British, as he does suggest, did not fight quite as hard as they might have because the hearts of some British housed sympathy for the colonial cause. One notable example is General William Howe, who strangely did not pummel us after our "ignoble defeat" at the Battle of Long Island.

Writes Mr. Pickles:

"The American rebellion was a civil war, one which the British could have won had they fought it with the ruthlessness of the rabbles but that was not British policy. Still perhaps the British abolition of the slave trade in 1808 and of slavery in the Empire in 1833 might have precipitated a revolution later but, from the British point of view, the American revolution was for the most part engineered by self seeking opportunists wearing a cloak of patriotism (the last refuge of a scoundrel).

"As has been said 'treason never prospers, for should it prosper none dare call it treason!"

Jews and Monarchy: the Hebrew Influence on the American Revolution

The American Revolution was a period of religious awakening, in the colonies a rejection of Catholicism, the splintering off of Protestant factions. Belief in God was the core of freedom: according to the John Locke and other philosophers of the period, the right of natural liberty was endowed by God himself.

But perhaps no religion was more crucial than Judaism itself, knowledge of Hebrew quite prevalent at the time even among non-Jews. The Old Testament chronicles the Israelite's failed attempts at monarchy, God's constant admonitions that Jews should elevate no man to the throne.

Here's an excerpt from my novel that plays on this theme:

Rebecca said, “In fact, I’ve almost memorized the Declaration of Independence—at least up until that long list of grievances against the King.” She paused, wondering whether to share her revelations of the morning. “You were parnas of the synagogue in Montreal, were you not?”

David smiled, but it was a painful smile, disguising a deeper hurt. “I was,” he said, “but I left, of course, when called to fight. I honor my religion as best I can, though of course, when fighting I cannot observe the Sabbath.”

Rebecca inched closer, as though to exchange a romantic endearment. “May I ask you a religious question?”

“Of course.”

Rebecca lowered her voice. “In my reading of the Declaration today something struck me for the first time: that we actually have a duty to throw off the shackles of tyranny.”

“Indeed,” said David, rather flippantly, apparently missing the emphasis of the word.

“I mean not just the ‘right’, but, according to the document, an outright ‘duty,” she said. “Reading this, I began to wonder to whom it is that we owe that duty? To ourselves? To our fellows? “

David laughed, his eyes flitting about the ballroom, likely for the spot of red that was Peggy Shippen. “This is hardly the sort of talk one years in ballrooms,” he joked.

“I’m serious,” Rebecca said, seeking to anchor his gaze. She could feel herself reddening with annoyance and he seemed to notice this. “I thought about this a great while and finally decided that we owe a duty to God Himself to throw off the shackles of British rule,” she said, her tone firm, eyes insistent.

When David looked back at her again, his gaze was steadfast; he even resisted yet another cycle of Peggy Shippen’s swirl around the ballroom with yet another man. It seemed to Rebecca that the blonde beauty was going out of her way to lure his attentions. Surely Peggy knew that the tall handsome stranger was Becky’s cousin and viewed him as she did all men: a territory yet to be conquered. But now was not the time, and David Salisbury Franks was not the man.

“Actually, Common Sense speaks of this at some length,” Rebecca said. He did not dare look away from her. “It’s one thing to read something, quite another to be hit on the head by it. If, as Locke and others presume, God is the author of our natural liberty, then it must follow, or at least it seems to me, that the very soul itself is imperiled if it submits to monarchy.”

David shook his head thoughtfully. She knew he understood, even as his confused eyes ran once again along her frilly appearance, so at odds, he must be thinking, with her knowledge. Was it impossible that a beautiful woman not also be intellectual? How unfair to have to make a choice.

“Actually,” he said, slowly nodding, “when you think of the history of the Israelites, their attempts at monarchy, what you say makes a great deal of sense.”

Rebecca, happy to have won back his attentions, nodded furiously, loosening some of the hair from the top of her head. “I was thinking of the prophet Gideon,” she said. “After he beat back the Midianites, the Israelites wanted to make him and his son the hereditary monarchs.”

“’I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, the Lord shall rule over you,’” David quoted, his eyes ignited.

Rebecca nodded excitedly, strands spilling from the top of her head, the bones of her bodice pressed against her flesh, her waist cinched so tightly she could barely breathe.

“And the prophet Samuel,” David continued, smiling, her enthusiasm evidently contagious. “When his people pleaded for a king, he himself said---“

“’I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain, that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great.” Rebecca interrupted. “So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day…”

“’We have added to our sins this evil, the people said, “to ask for a King,” David said, nodding vigorously.

“If it’s a sin to even ask for a king,” Rebecca concluded, “then it is also a sin, at least for us Jews, to submit to one.”

Colonial-Era Synagogue in Philadelphia: Mikveh Israel

On a field trip to Philadelphia this weekend to conduct research for my book, I visited Congregation Mikveh Israel, the successor of the colonial-era congregation of that name, now nicknamed "the synagogue of the Revolution." Its current congregants are Sephardic Jews, as were its founders. The ritual remains unchanged to this day.

The site was born of the grief of Nathan Levy.

Like many Jews of the era, Levy was a merchant in the import/export trade. Originally from New York, Levy moved to Philly in 1738--long before the outbreak of hostilities between the colonies and Britain. When one of his children died, he applied to the family of William Penn, governor of the province, simply seeking a plot of ground in which to bury the child. The plot soon was enlarged in 1740 "for several Jews," evidence of a growing Jewish presence in that city.

According to the traditions of colonial Jews, synagogues could not be located near cemeteries. Actual worship took place at first in private homes and then in rented rooms until the synagogue itself was constructed in 1782. How those rented rooms must have swelled with the outbreak of the Revolution as Jews fled New York City, Charleston, Lancaster, Richmond and Savannah! Because the British occupation of Philadelphia in 1777 was "peaceful"--almost welcome to the city's loyalist residents--services presumably were uninterrupted by the war. (The British eventually evacuated--peacefully--because the King was fed up with all the fun-loving ways of his British General Howe!)

Evidence suggests that a Jewish presence in the Delaware Valley dates back as early 1655.

For more about colonial-era Jews, stay tuned as I wade through various archives in New York and Philadelphia, the principal locations of the novel. I intend to be very detailed in my presentation of Jewish life during the American Revolution!

"Slaughter your babies," continued, Benedict Arnold

I've already shared on this blog about having had to excise the first 100 pages of my book, a process known as "slaughtering your babies," meaning ridding one's novel of anything that blocks its progress, no matter how cherished the words.

It's worked. The book plops my heroine right in the midst of the British invasion of New York and the announcement of the Declaration of Independence: July 7, 1776. (Chapter one, posted below, still a work in progress.) As I move forward--quickly now-- I find myself "slaughtering" even more babies. I had to remove an entire chapter (posted earlier on this blog) about Benedict Arnold, a powerful scene which foreshadows his ultimate betrayal. The scene no longer works because of my change in chronology: it preceded the opening of the book. There was simply no way to "save" it, not without complicated flashbacks, which I try to avoid. So I bring him in early through "hearsay"--I was a lawyer for 20 years, so why not? Other characters, many who revere him, refer to Arnold's heroism--he really was a hero- and his battles with Congress, whose members--quite tragically--refuse to appreciate him.

Just to give away a little, not too much: The book's heroine, Rebecca, is spying on British Major John Andre, falls in love with him and he with her. Obviously, not an ideal relationship, as she goes behind his back to Valley Forge to "rat out" some British spies and Andre catches her in certain alibis. Over time she gets wind of a plot involving an American general known only as "the Monk." Readers will figure out who he is, but not Rebecca, nor the rebels at Valley Forge. The denouement that follows I will not give away in its particulars. But we do know what ultimately happens to "the Monk." (Or do we? I wonder how many readers know the real story of this tragic figure?)

I started a "thread" on a writer's group on Linked in. Apparently, I am not alone in having to surgically remove huge portions of my writing--all for the sake of plot and forward motion.

My next novel (this one is a few months from completion, but has already attracted outside interest) is going to be about Arnold himself, the events and emotions that led up his betrayal, including his love for the much-younger Peggy Shippen (Lady MacBeth incarnate), who Iago-style drops little nuggets that make him re-think his patriotism. Since I personally detest Peggy, I'll have to tell it from the viewpoint of either Arnold himself or some close third party. Anyway, that's where I might be able to "reincarnate" some of my slaughtered scenes. (And to think that some agents, but not, thank God, all, don't think American history is interesting!)

The remainder of my "slaughtered babies" will simply have to slumber in eternity, victims of my overzealous 12-hour days of writing, six days a week. Sad, but this is the process of creativity.

Still, I mourn them.

New opening of novel--First 100 pages "chopped"

As I've mentioned in an earlier post I chopped off the first hundred pages of my novel because they were all a "lead up" to the real action, which started too late. It wasn't an easy decision, slicing  off three years of work. Some of it was good writing, sentences that took two hours or more to craft.  But, as they say, "slaughter your babies."  Part with the words you hold most dear. Those babies are what ruin your novel.

The new opening drops the main character right into the boiling water. As British ships glide towards New York Harbor, preparing to invade, Rebecca at first refuses to flee to Philadelphia as her father orders.  She herself sneaks out of her house, watches the blizzard of British ships, runs into her lover, Alexander Hamilton, reads the Declaration of Independence, bades farewell as he goes off  to defend the city from what promises to be a slaughter. Her own little brother wants to join the cause, but Rebecca "protects" him, interfering, potentially with the destiny it's his to determine.

"Everything that is right or reasonable pleads for separation..," says the then-anonymous author of Common Sense, a contemporaneous political writing of extraordinary power.

This tension between protection and enslavement is the very heart of the book, tentatively entitled, A TIME TO PART, based on the Thomas Paine quote.  For the colonies,, the political question is, when is it time to part from a foreign power,  long our protector, now a menace to our further growth? The same questions reverberate, on a personal level, in each of the main characters' souls as well.

This has been quite an experience, this "slaughtering" of my babies. Sorry kids!