Talk About a Useless Poll

So, what would YOU think if you saw the following headline?

Poll: World Doesn't Respect Bush

Perhaps the poll is one of world leaders, or maybe selected citizen samples from countries around the world? That's what I would think. Then the data from the poll would be of note and something worth looking into further. So, why do I think this poll is useless? Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

(CBS) Americans generally approve of President Bush's handling of the current Mideast crisis, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll, but six in 10 say the president is not respected by foreign leaders.

Gee that's interesting, the WORLD doesn't support Bush according to a poll of AMERICANS. To me it seems like the writer of the article and the headline writer just didn't communicate too well. I know some will disagree, but this type of question in a poll of Americans makes about as much sense as asking African-Americans how Hispanics view Asian-Americans. How do Americans know what foreign leaders think about President Bush, or Mickey Mouse for that matter? I personally don't know ANY world leaders so, if asked the same question, I would have to decline to answer because my only source of information on this topic is the news media. In other words, what I know about what any world leader thinks/believes is hearsay. Therefore, it doesn't seem to make any sense to ask me what they believe about anything since I haven't spoken with them personally about it. But, that's just an observation.

As an aside, I thought there was a pretty funny little "footnote" to this article. The last two paragraphs read as follows:

A separate CBS News/New York Times poll on Congress and the 2006 election (.pdf) found continued low approval ratings for lawmakers and the president translating into a Democratic lead in the midterm voting this fall.

If the midterm elections for the House of Representatives were held today, 45 percent of registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 35 percent would support the Republican.

So, to be accurate we have 20% of registered voters who would support neither the Democratic or Republican candidate. Given an error percentage of 3-5%, does that mean we're almost in a statistical dead heat for any one of the three to end up in a runoff?

Speaking of polls. I've added a poll on polls (LOL) on the right hand side. Enjoy

Now Playing: "My Struggle" by Seventh Day Slumber

Technorati: George Bush, NY Times Poll

1776 - Definitely Worth a Read

If you previously read my series of posts leading up to July 4, 1776, you must know that I thoroughly enjoy US history from the Colonial and Revolutionary periods.

Currently, I'm reading an excellent book by David McCullough entitled 1776.


You can find the book at Amazon and read some other reviews.

What I find most fascinating about McCullough's work is the amazing breadth of points of view covered in the book. The book starts with a look at King George of England. Beginning there, the reader is given a glimpse into the way both he and the Parliament of England were approaching the developments in the American colonies. From there, the reader is given a behind the scenes look at what was going on leading into the major battles of 1776. During this journey, there are interesting glimpses into the minds and hearts of both the volunteer Continentals and the British regulars.

McCullough's descriptions of the American gentry, the volunteer farmer-soldiers and their living conditions are so vivid. Beyond this, the reader is given a view of how the hardships faced by the American soldiers extended to their families and hometowns. This was truly a war that was fought by all Colonists whether they were on the battlefield as soldiers, or trying to bring assistance and comfort to the volunteers. Equally, McCullough's descriptions of the misery experienced by the British soldiers that were bottled up in Boston demonstrate why some deserted the British army and joined the American Continentals.

This book is truly a refreshing look at the events of 1776 as our ancestors fought for the freedom we now enjoy. It's still early in the book, so I hope to post some other impressions as I continue to read.

Now Playing: "Real To Me" by Nichole Nordeman

Technorati: 1776, David McCullough

Discovery Channel "Global Warming" Special Biased

I know I haven't posted on Global Warming in a while. I decided to take some time off and focus on a few other topics. Check out my posts (that's the first of five) on the history surrounding Independence Day. Some interesting and fascinating historical tidbits. Also, I have a few posts that are political in nature..as usual.

Back to Global Warming. The Discovery Channel is airing a Global Warming special on Sunday, July 16th, that appears like it's going to be a little less than balanced. Here's the description from The Discovery Channel 's own press release regarding the program:

Produced by the global alliance of Discovery Channel, the BBC and NBC News Productions, and hosted by award-winning journalist Tom Brokaw, the two-hour special presents the facts and leaves it up to the viewers to determine their own truth about global warming.

And then at the end of the press release.

The international team of experts, including NASA’s top climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, and Princeton University professors Michael Oppenheimer and Stephen Pacala, will discuss the current realities of global warming and predict the future of the planet. Many of the experts will address natural warming and cooling cycles going back 600,000 years, and discuss if the present warming trend is unnatural.

However, Roger A. Pielke, director of the Colorado Climate Center, says the program is biased in a post on his own site which is published by CNS news. Roger's primary critique is summed up in this quote from his blog:

It is a disappointment that this show, hosted by Tom Brokaw, did not use the two hours to present a balanced view on the spectrum of perspectives on the human influences on the climate system. The show relied on just a few scientists with a particular personal viewpoint on this subject which misleads the public on the broader view that is actually held by most climate scientists. The show should have presented perspectives such as reported in the 2005 National Research Council Report “Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties” . This Report not only included a diversity of authors, but was peer reviewed.

CNS news also has concerns about one of the leading experts used by The Discovery Channel, Dr. James Hansen:

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Hansen's reputation as a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the issue of "global warming" and a victim of White House censorship has been disputed by a former colleague as well as a current co-worker.

Hansen also acted as a consultant for former Vice President Al Gore's slide-show presentations on "global warming," which served as the basis for his film, "An Inconvenient Truth."

On Pielke's blog, he provides some specifc concerns about the "facts" presented on the special:

The show also contains errors and misconceptions. Three examples are presented here. Rapid glacial retreat is not a new observation, nor are all glaciers retreating (see). The Grand Pacific glacier in Glacier Bay National Park, for example, retreated 48 miles from 1794 to 1879, and a further 17 miles by 1916. Large masses of glacial ice breaking from the Antarctic continent are not a new feature of this region (e.g. see, where the crack on an ice mass that subsequently ruptured in 2002 was seen “about as long as people have been going to Antarctica”). Greg Holland’s suggestion that we may need a “category 6″ Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale is not supported by any research that I am aware, or even what such a new category would mean.

What's important about Pielke's critique is that he believes in a balanced approach to the study of Climate Change and Global Warming. He believes that Global Warming and Climate Change are affected by BOTH Natural and Human induced forcings. There should be a balanced approach to understand these forcings. To me, he makes a very valid point about CO2 and how it's addressed in the special:

The special ends with recommendations to reduce the emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 and fossil fuels are explicitly mentioned as the “villains”. However, the reduction of emissions, in conjunction with improved energy efficiency, reduces a wide variety of gaseous and aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, as well as saving money! Why not start with these benefits, which include, but are not limited to CO2? If the global climate starts to cool, does this mean that we should not adopt energy efficiency?

A scientifically balanced presentation would discuss the broad variety of human forcings (as has been discussed often on this weblog) which collectively are altering our climate. The show would also mention that of the reported global warming that has occurred, only at most about 28% can be attributed to CO2 (see).

What's that? CO2 is only responsible for UP TO 28% of Global Warming? Well, what makes up the remaining 72%? That's where I believe additional studies need to focus.

Anyway, Jane Root and EVP with The Discovery Channel made a pretty lame defense of the program:

"In the case of global warming, knowledge is more than just power -- it is a crucial ingredient in how we choose to live our lives," Root said. "As our planet evolves, Discovery Channel is there, dissecting the science happening all around us into useful, vital information."

Hmmmmm....if The Discovery Channel were "dissecting the science happening all around us", perhaps they would be showing a more balanced program.

I'm going to try and watch the program, but I'll be on vacation in the mountains, so I may not get a chance. Maybe I can get someone to DVR it or catch it on a re-run. If I get a chance to view it, I'll post my thoughts in a later blog.

Now Playing: "Like Someone You Know" by Further Seems Forever

Technorati: Global Warming, Climate Change, Discovery Channel

Democrats Go In Wrong Direction

UPDATE: 07/15/06 The ad has been pulled. Strangely enough, Representative John Spratt (D-SC), who happens to be my Representative, was one of the leading Democrats calling for the removal. I rarely agree with Rep. Spratt...but this time was an exception. I'll try to find out if the video has been archived elsewhere on the web.

UPDATE: 07/14/06 Now, when accessing the video linked below, there is a request for an email address and zip code. Ignore those fields and simply click on the play button.

- Original post -

Just when I thought the Democrats wouldn't stoop to new lows, well....that's what I get for thinking. Although there are polls that say the Democrats should win seats in both houses of Congress this year, the Democrats still choose to stoop to a new low.

This new video entitled America Needs a New Direction posted on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website shows that Democrats will stop at nothing to take the low road to Election Day. Yes, most of the video is made up of typical political attacks that both parties are guilty of using. There's a mugshot of Tom Delay, images of high gas prices, business closed, etc., etc. So, what's the problem I have with this video?

Simple. Democrats include an image of flag draped caskets in a video where they are trying to win their way into office. These caskets are bringing our honored soldiers, that have made the ultimate sacrifice, home to their grieving families. Some may argue, (and I heard it on talk radio today) if you can't take the images of war - mangled bodies, death and destruction - then you shouldn't be in favor of it. What?!? This was not an image of war as described above, this was an image of our honored fallen soldiers coming home.

There may be some that comment that I'm just mad that the Iraq War is being criticized. That is not the case. I am disgusted at the how the Democrats are using this image to try and win seats in Congress. Is NOTHING sacred? Where is the respect for the families that have lost loved ones? These soldiers died for their country. Before you start, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT IRAQ, BUSH, AFGHANISTAN, THE WAR ON TERROR, ETC, ETC - SO DON'T BOTHER. This is about having common decency, honor and respect for our military men and women that have died doing their jobs.

Unless the DCCC has written permission from the families of each and every one of the soldiers that have died to use their images to promote their ideology, I believe the DCCC owes these families a very public and humble apology. Using this image in this context implies that the families involved agree with the DCCC that our country is headed in the wrong direction and that their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters died for something they did not believe in. By effectively speaking on behalf of these families, creating the impression of their tacit approval, is disingenuous at best.

Thanks DCCC for reminding me that some politicians believe their pursuit of power and control is more important than anything, even if it means disrespecting the dead.

Now Playing: "You Decide" by Fireflight

Technorati: Democrats, America Needs A New Direction, DCCC

Tax Revenues Up! -- Let The Spin Begin

The NY Times just posted this story with the following headline: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues is Curbing Deficit. Now what's surprising to me is that the NYTimes would even print this. But don't worry they get their spin in.

Let's look at the article first. From the first two paragraphs:

WASHINGTON, July 8 An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

That's good. I will admit, we're not where we need to be at this point. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are quite adept at using taxpayer dollars to buy their way back into office. Talk about the perfect scheme! First, the government takes your money from you and then uses your money to "benefit" you so you'll elect the same guy back into office so he can vote to take more of your money. Does any of that make sense? But that's a different post.

But, with the good news lead-in out of the way, it doesn't take long for the NYTimes bias to kick in. Compare these excerpts:

Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves that their tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends, would spur the economy and ultimately increase revenues.

Now, the second one:

Democrats and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement.

Notice anything specific? The first excerpt reports on what Republicans are saying. The second one takes to a little editorializing. My first observation. So, according to the NYTimes, "many independent budget analysts" agree with the Democrats. But, in the first excerpt, the Republicans stand all by their lonesome. Hmmmm. Seems to me that the tax receipts would agree with the Republicans on this one. Surely the NYTimes could have mentioned a minority of budget analysts that agree with the Republicans?

On to the next observation. Another excerpt:

One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth.

Ok, a little business lesson for our NYTimes writer here. The business cycle is cyclical (duh). The fall into the Recession of 2000 didn't have anything to do with President Bush, or President Clinton for that matter. This site here provides a listing of the general reasons for the Recession. Recessions have to run their courses. I reference you to this site here for an excellent listing of recessions in the last several centuries.

The second sentence in the above excerpt is interesting, but an obvious attempt to downplay any benefit from increased revenues. Poor attempt. This one's too easy! The reason is simple. Tax revenues lag behind economic growth because the increases in tax revenue are a RESULT OF economic growth and are therefore collected AFTER the growth begins. I won't go into great detail about the legal practice of deferring income into a future tax year. Deferring any income (but usually capital gains from good stock market performance) into future years will delay the tax on that income. There's the lag. The writer of the article even provides this answer in an indirect way.

One reason for the increased volatility may be that, contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than about $300,000 a year. Because those households also earn the overwhelming share of taxable investment income and executive bonuses, both their incomes and their tax liabilities swing sharply in bull and bear markets.

Now, how does this play into the NYTimes' general diatribe against upper classes and how they don't pay taxes. They just popped their own balloon. What are they thinking!?

I can understand the NYTimes' frustration here. Any good news for the economy is bad news for Democrats this year. Times have been tough at the NYTimes. They've published several things lately (i.e. SWIFT - funds transfer program to track terrorist funding, etc) which have drawn huge outcries from the Public about National Security.

One last contention with the NYTimes. In the article, the writer states:

Despite almost five years of economic growth, individual income taxes — the biggest component of federal tax revenues — have yet to reach the levels of 2000. Even with surging payments for investment profits and business income, individual tax payments in 2005 were only $972 billion — below the $1 trillion reached in 2000, even without adjusting for inflation.

That sounds like a serious problem doesn't it? But, let's look at ALL the data from those years - not just 2000. From this site:

Year and amount of Individual Tax Revenues:

• 1998 - $828,586
• 1999 - $879,480
• 2000 - $1,004,462
• 2001 - $994,339
• 2002 - $858,345
• 2003 - $793,699
• 2004 - $808,959
• 2005 - $893,704 (estimated)
• 2006 - $966,877 (estimated)
  

Very interesting. 2001 appears to be an anomoly when compared to the 2 years prior to it. Could it be that 2001 was the end of the "Dot Com Bubble"? It seems like any reasonable person could see that comparing revenues ONLY to 2001 when that year appears to fall outside the natural growth trend would be a little disingenuous.

Anyway, I am pleased to see the revenue growth. Nice try NYTimes.

Now Playing: "Always There" by Slingshot 57

Technorati: New York Times, tax cuts, Budget Deficit

World Cup rednecks!

The World Cup is the pinnacle of the sports world (well, for anywhere outside the USA that is). Fans are rabid about their teams. There are constant reports of fans "getting into it" as to which teams are the best etc.

But, this takes the cake. My theory is: "Rednecks are Ubiquitous". I guess they were just trying to "get a kick" out of watching people fall for their prank! From the first paragraph of the story:

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Berlin police arrested two men accused of filling soccer balls with concrete and placing them throughout the city, inviting passers-by to try out their shooting prowess with a red-painted label ``can u kick it.'' Two men were injured.

I hope it was worth it boys! Hey y'all, watch this....you're going to jail.

Now Playing: "I Belong To You" by Building 429

Technorati: World Cup, can u kick it

July 4, 1776 - Independence Day

Sorry I am late with this post. We had an Independence Day celebration picnic at church till late. Enjoy the history tidbits.

Traditionally, July 4th has been celebrated as Independence Day. However, we know from my post of two days ago, that Independence was really declared on July 2nd when the Continental Congress approved William Henry Lee's motion. On June 11th, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, as a committe to create the Declaration of Independence. The committee submitted it's draft to Congress on July 2nd. However, July 4th was the day that the Congress finished editing the Declaration of Independence. That same day, John Dunlap of Philadelphia prints the first copies of the Declaration which are then sent for distribution to various legislatures, state congresses and military camps. It wasn't until August 2nd, 1776, that the Delegates to the Continental Congress began to sign the Declaration on an official engrossed parchment. Of note, news about the Declaration did not reach London until August 10, 1776. Eventually, 56 delegates would sign the Declaration. I've included the full text of the Declaration below. Following that are some thoughts of a few of the signers.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

But what did the signers think about their actions. From PBS:

There was courage among them, and fear too, so they joked to help break the tension. Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, a plantation owner and a huge man, turned and spoke to skinny Elbridge Gerry, a prosperous Massachusetts merchant, and said, "I will have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead."

Later, Pennsylvania's Benjamin Rush remembered the solemnness of the proceedings in a letter he wrote to John Adams of Massachusetts: "Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the president of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?"

Many of these men made great sacrifices during the Revolutionary War. I'll see if I can cobble that information together and post about what they lost as a result of their stand.

Now Playing: "In The Light" by StorySide: B

Technorati: July 4th, Independence Day, Declaration of Independence

July 3, 1776 - The Excitement Builds

July 2nd, 1776 was such a momentus day. The Continental Congress had adopted William Henry Lee's motion to be free and independent states. However, there was still much work to be done on the Declaration of Independence. All of July 3rd and much of July 4th would be spent editing the draft originally presented by Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Committee of Five.

There were other important things that took place that day. As the Revolutionary War continued:

On July 3, 1776, British troops landed on Staten Island. Over a period of six weeks, British troop strength was increased so that it number over 32,000 by the end of August. Meanwhile, General Washington was preparing his men as well as he could under the circumstances. Washington was hampered by the British control of the sea, which allowed them to conceivably attack either Long Island or Manhattan. Washington decided to defend both vulnerable areas.

In fact, in a letter from General George Washington to the Continental Congress dated July 3, 1776, he expressed his concerns about the situation in New York.

New York, July 3, 1776.

Sir: Since I had the honor of addressing you and on the same day several Ships more arrived within the Hook; making the number that came in them, 110, and there remains no doubt of the whole of the Fleet from Hallifax being now here. Yesterday Evening 50 of them came into the Bay and Anchored on the Staten Island side. Their views I cannot precisely determine, but am extremely apprehensive, as a part of them only came, that they mean to surround the Island and secure the whole stock upon it. I had consulted with a committee of the Provincial Congress on the Subject, and a person was appointed to superintend the business and to drive the Stock off. I also wrote to Brigadier General Herd and directed him to the Measure, lest it might be neglected, but am fearful it has not been effected.

Our reinforcements of Militia are but small yet: Their amount I cannot ascertain, having not been able to procure a return. However, I trust, if the Enemy make an Attack, they will meet with a repulse, as I have the pleasure to inform you, that an agreeable Spirit and willingness for Action, seems to Animate and prevade the whole of our Troops.

As it is difficult to determine what Objects the Enemy may have in contemplation, and whether they may not detach some part of their force to Amboy and to ravage that part of the Country if not to extend their views farther;

I submit it to Congress whether it may not be expedient for them to repeat and press home their requests to the different Governments, that are to provide men for the Flying Camp, to furnish their quotas with all possible dispatch. It is a matter of great Importance and will be of serious consequence to have the Camp established in case the Enemy should be able to possess themselves of this River and cut off the supplies of Troops that might be necessary, on certain emergencies, to be sent from hence.

I must entreat your attention to an application I made some time ago for Flints; we are extremely deficient in this necessary Article and shall be greatly distressed, If we cannot obtain a supply. Of Lead we have a sufficient Quantity for the whole Campaign, taken off the Houses here.

Esteeming it of Infinite Importance, to prevent the Enemy from getting fresh Provisions and Horses for their Waggons, Artillery. I gave orders to a party of our Men on Staten Island, since writing General Herd, to drive the Stock off without waiting for the assistance or direction of the Committee there, lest their slow mode of transacting business might produce too much delay, and have sent this morning to know what they have done. I am this Minute informed by a Gentleman that the Committee of Elizabeth Town, sent their Company of Light Horse, on Monday to effect it, and that some of their Militia was to give their aid Yesterday; he adds he was credibly told last Night, by part of the Militia coming to this place, that Yesterday Evening they saw a good many stock driving of the Island and crossing to the Jerseys. If the business is not executed ere now, It will be impossible to do it. I have the Honor.

General Washington was in a bind. The British had now amassed a large force in New York harbor. There was a risk that they could decide to invade Staten Island or Manhattan as mentioned above. He was outmanned, outgunned and low on supplies. I know it was a long read, but I believe it's important to see the mindset and concerns that weighed heavy on General Washington's mind.

As to the other important events of July 3, 1776.

On Wednesday, July 3, 1776, the Convention resolved that a new convention be elected "for the express purpose of forming a new government by the authority of the people only, and enacting and ordering all things for the preservation, safety and general weal of this colony."

Tomorrow will see the final edits to the Declaration of Independence. What else will happen that day?

Now Playing: "Breathe Into Me" by Red

Technorati: July 4th, Independence Day, George Washington

July 2, 1776 - Independence is Declared!

This isn't July 4th, the Declaration of Independence is still being edited, how can I say that Independence is declared? Let's dig a little more deeply on the post of yesterday.

I need to make one clarification. Yesterday, I posted that a Resolution by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was voted on and approved. That is true. But, it was only approved in committee. The full text of the Resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

The Continental Congress voted to approve the Resolution by a vote of 12 in favor. New York abstained as the delegates awaited instructions from the newly elected New York Congress. So Independence was declared by 12 votes for and one abstention!

There were three key points to Lee's resolution:

1. The colonies should be free and independent states and sever their ties with Great Britain.
2. These newly independent states now need to seek foreign alliances.
3. These newly independent states need to agree to confederate - i.e. work together.

The last two points were very significant. These points addressed two things that needed to take place if the States were going to win their freedom. The States would need help to defeat the British - one of the most important alliances being with France (odd huh?). Secondly, the States would have to work together instead of continuing their separate existences.

Immediately afterward, the Congress began debating Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence and began making the first edits. These edits would continue throughout July 3rd and most of July 4th. Even as these edits began, John Adams recognized the importance of this vote for Independence in a letter he penned to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776:

"The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

July 2 was quite an exciting day for the Continental Congress, but that's not all that was going on.

Please bear in mind, the Revolutionary War had been going on since the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Patriot Militia had been involved in battles, skirmishes and naval bombardment. With this in mind, it is awe inspiring to read part of a General Orders letter written by George Washington to his commanders. Specifically, from the fourth paragraph:

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army - Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect - We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions—The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.

Independence is here, it now has to be claimed.
Now Playing: "High of 75" by Reliant K

Technorati: July 4th, Independence Day, Declaration of Independence

July 1, 1776 - Leading Up To Independence

I posted yesterday about one of the early significant victories of the Patriots over the British. As a result of the heroic actions by Col. William Moultrie during the Battle of Fort Sullivan, the South Carolina state Legislature renamed Fort Sullivan to Fort Moultrie.

But what else happened that day?

Well, the Continental Congress was still meeting. The focus was intently on what the delegates of the Congress were going to do. A committee designated by the Congress was busily working on the Declaration of Independence. Although the primary writer, as you may know, was Thomas Jefferson, the committee also included: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. Even with this work going on, another key motion was approved that day. From this site:

The Continental Congress, sitting as a committee, met on July 1, 1776, to debate a resolution submitted by Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee on June 7. The resolution stated that the United Colonies "are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." The committee voted for the motion.

So, even before the first draft of the Declaration was presented, we have a indication that the Congress was united in their desire for independence.

The National Park Service notes several other key events on that day.

George Washington's letter of June 29 is read to Congress. In it he announces the arrival of the British fleet in New York. Shortly thereafter, the Continental Congress approves Richard Henry Lee's resolution of respecting independence, but South Carolina delegates postpone determination by the entire house until July 2.

A committee from the Virginia Convention informs Patrick Henry of his election as Governor under the new constitution.

Now the British fleet is in place to control the important port of New York. However, there is news that would later prove to be good with Patrick Henry becoming Governor in Virginia. Patrick Henry was a strong supporter of Independence and is best known for stating so plainly:

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.

Lastly, although the British navy failed in it's efforts at Moore Creek in North Carolina and was soundly repelled at the Battle of Fort Sullivan, the British were still working to create problems for the Southern Colonies. Again, according to the National Park Service.

Incited by British royal agents, the Cherokee attacked along the entire southern frontier.

As you can see, since the start of the Revolutionary War in 1775, events continue to build toward the Declaration of Independence. After this Declaration becomes public, the War will only intensify and test the resolve of the patriots fighting for independence.

Now Playing: "Rock The Party" by P.O.D.

Technorati: July 4th, Independence Day, Continental Congress