Mass communication, 1776 style

John Dunlap (1747-1812) is rarely included in lists of America's founding fathers, which is really a shame.

The Philadelphia printer may not have been a decorated military hero.

And, he wasn't a member of the Continental Congress.

But, he did take Thomas Jefferson's handwritten original of our Declaration of Independence, and put it into print.

It was on this date back in 1776 that John Hancock ordered copies of Dunlap's broadsides be distributed to all the political and military leaders in the 13 original colonies, to be read to the general public and our service men.

So, remember, ye socks, Benjamin Franklin wasn't the only printer from Philadelphia to help birth our nation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

Committees can be productive

As evidence, I submit to ye socks the result of a committee created by the Continental Congress.

On this date back in 1776, they returned a draft of the Declaration of Independence that won congressional approval.

Nowadays, it seems an all-too-often result of committee work is stonewalling, foot-dragging, and indecision. Or, worse, if ye examine the shenanigans of committee chairmen like Barney Frank.

Fortunately, our forefathers had the wisdom to appoint some pretty stellar committee members to handle the task of drafting the famous declaration:

* Thomas Jefferson, who did almost all of the actual writing and generally gets most of the credit (deservedly, so).

* John Adams, who made the first round of revisions.

* Benjamin Franklin, who made the second round of revisions.

* Robert R. Livingston, of whom I must confess that I know almost nothing about.

and, finally

* Roger Sherman (1721-1793) the dandy fellow from Connecticut, pictured here in the dryer today. Jefferson once said of his fellow committee member that he "never said a foolish thing in his life." Oh, how times have changed . . .

What a tangled web!

Yep, still reading the book about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

Hope ye socks aren't getting bored with these posts on the subject, but it's been a good read and I've been learning a lot.

Today's little genealogical tidbit concerns Jefferson's wife. I never knew anything about her before. Her name was Martha Wayles, and it turns out she was the half-sister of Hemings!

On a personal note, I also discovered that Jefferson was her SECOND husband. And, her first husband was a fellow by the name of Bathurst Skelton.

Well, the Richard Stith that I mentioned in previous postings was a grandson of a lady named Susanna Bathurst. A peculiar name, not like Jones or Smith. So, I'm sure there's a connection somewhere. Need to do a little sleuthing on this one . . .

Back to the book . . .

Reading between the numbers

Further to yesterday's post, I've been delving into the accounting of that sale of slaves imported to Virginia aboard the ship The Prince of Wales back in 1772.

I am finding it is just another sad example of how cold accounting can be, and how much information cannot be conveyed by strict columns and numbers.

In this case, the compiler failed to note the ship actually began its voyage in Africa with a human cargo numbering 400.

Only 280 survived the trip.

Of that number, 266 were sold on the auction block.

What happened to the other 14? For that matter, what happened to the 266 after they were purchased?

What we do know is that folks back then were an awful lot like folks today. They bought on credit, promising to pay the sales agents Richard Randolph and John Wayles (father-in-law of Thomas Jefferson) when their tobacco crops came in.

But, tobacco prices plummeted that year, and the debtors failed to pay-up, reluctant to take the loss on their devalued crop. (To put it in modern terms, it would be like having to pay based on your home equity or 401(k) balance.)

To add to the mess, Mr. Wayles dropped dead in 1773. Mr. Randolph was left holding the bag. So, when the slaves' consignor John Powell & Company of Bristol, England, demanded payment, he had to get a "bail-out" from the firm of Farrell & Jones.

Unlike modern bailers, though, F&J went after both Randolph and the Wayles estate to try to recoup their losses. The case dragged on for many years, and I haven't yet found out how it was resolved. But, I doubt we will see such doggedness when it comes to recovering any of the bail-out money being so recklessly issued up in DC nowadays . . .

To borrow an accounting term, the "bottom line" for ye socks here is that you've got to appreciate that there's almost always a lot more going on behind the numbers on a financial statement--be it an historical one or a modern-day example.

The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family

That's the title of a book [ISBN 9780393064773] by Annette Gordon-Reed that the Orange County Library System was kind enough to deliver to yours truly this afternoon.

I had seen the author on a recent talk show, which sparked my interest. She's a smart cookie, teaching both law at NYU and history at Rutgers. And, I figured any work that wins a National Book Award is worthy of a perusal. Besides, the whole genealogy angle is always appealing to me.

Though I am only just beginning to delve into it, I have not been disappointed so far. Gordon-Reed writes in a style that is easily followed, and cites her sources in a way that would make any English teacher proud.

Before I began reading, I couldn't help myself but check out all the illustrations inserted in between the pages near the middle of the book. Often times, pictures do indeed say a thousand words and offer the best prelude to a lengthy text like this.

Imagine my surpise (and discomfort) to discover the third illustration of the accounting of a slave sale dated 30 December 1772 included my own ancestor Richard Stith among the list of buyers of human chattel.

Clearly, this book's subject matter is going to be as challenging to this descendant of slaveowners to read as it must have been for the descendant of slaves to compile.

Fortunately, I'm always up to a good challenge . . .

Ranking the Presidents

It seems like this day every year, a bunch of liberal eggheads try to spoon feed us their rankings of all the presidents. C-SPAN is offering a prime example today.

I decided to examine the list and rank them myself. Disclaimers: No one got any style points for looking good in a tux or for having a flashy smile. Also, no points were awarded for martyrdom. I only graded on what was accomplised AS PRESIDENT. What happened before or after was not considered.

And, of course, I examine everything from a conservative perspective the aforementioned eggheads will probably never quite grasp.

Ok, so here goes:

1. Ronald Reagan
2. James Monroe
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. James K. Polk
5. Abraham Lincoln
6. Theodore Roosevelt
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. George Washington
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
10. Harry Truman
11. George H.W. Bush
12. William McKinley
13. Andrew Jackson
14. Ulysses S. Grant
15. Rutherford B. Hayes
16. James Madison
17. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
18. George W. Bush
19. John F. Kennedy
20. Gerald R. Ford
21. Millard Fillmore
22. Bill Clinton
23. William H. Taft
24. Woodrow Wilson
25. John Tyler
26. Chester Arthur
27. John Adams
28. Richard Nixon
29. Grover Cleveland
30. John Quincy Adams
31. Martin Van Buren
32. Lyndon Johnson
33. Jimmy Carter
34. Warren Harding
35. Benjamin Harrison
36. Franklin Pierce
37. Andrew Johnson
38. Herbert Hoover
39. Zachary Taylor
40. James Buchanan

Well, at least we all agreed on Buchanan being the worst.

Note:
Three names were left off the list due to incomplete records:
* James A. Garfield - assassinated only a few months after inauguration.
* William Henry Harrison - died of pneumonia a month after taking office.
* Barack Hussein Obama - current commander-in-chief (shudder!)

Alexander Hamilton and constitutional rights

Call me a geek, but I am really getting in to a book on CD about Alexander Hamilton.

Hey, it helped me pass a few hours on the road trip this weekend, so give me a break!

Anyway, I'm enjoying it because of the insights it's giving me on how our constitution was crafted by the founders.

But, what I'm having a little trouble comprehending--especially in light of yesterday's horrific events up in Blacksburg, Virginia--is why do we extend civil liberties to non-citizens?

I differentiate "liberties" from "rights." Rights are inalienable, as has been so appropriately pointed-out by the likes of Thomas Jefferson.

But, liberties are different.

For instance, if you're in this country legally or illegally but are not a citizen, I do NOT believe you have the constitutional RIGHT to bear arms. You are NOT a citizen, therefore you may enjoy whatever LIBERTIES we citizens choose to allow.

Clearly, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, Mr. Cho (a resident ALIEN) should not have been allowed to carry a gun.

Ah, well, back to the Hamiltonia . . .