How Jefferson Davis Escaped the Death Penalty: Why the Leader of the Confederacy was Never Executed

After the U.S. Civil War ended, the President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, was considered to be a wanted criminal, guilty of treason, as historian Ronald Shafter writes:

The Confederate leader’s prospects were grim in April 1865 after the South surrendered and President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The new president, Johnson, ordered a $100,000 reward — equal to about $1.8 million now — for the capture of Davis, who was fleeing into the South.

After a manhunt by the Union Army, he was captured in Georgia in May 1865. It was widely assumed that he would be convicted of treason and sentenced to death.

Jefferson Davis sat in jail for nearly two years before he was allowed to post bail and await his eventual trial.

President Andrew Johnson, who’d taken office upon the death of Lincoln, began his administration by at first demanding stern justice for the leaders of the Confederacy. As time went on, however, President Johnson began to feel more sympathy for the Confederate officials, who were after all part of the same Democratic Party as Johnson himself.

Eventually, Johnson went so far as to bring

Southern white supremacists back into the government while resisting new rights for black citizens. After Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the House impeached Johnson, and his trial in the Senate was scheduled for March 1868 — the same month as Davis’s trial.

The trial of President Johnson was protracted, and absorbed so much political energy and public attention, that the trial of Jefferson Davis was delayed again and again. Johnson was eventually acquitted and allowed to remain as president.

Even the Republicans, who’d unswervingly opposed slavery, began to point out that it was unjust to deny a speedy trial. In December 1868, President Johnson issued a pardon to his fellow Democrat Jefferson Davis. Johnson left office to spend a few years away from politics, but was eventually elected to the U.S. Senate.

Jefferson Davis worked in several different businesses after being pardoned by Johnson, eventually becoming the president of an insurance company. He outlived Johnson and “died in 1889 at age 81, unrepentant.” He never expressed any regret for defending slavery, for the rebellion, or for the war.

As the leader of the rebellion, Davis was prevented from engaging in the political process or running for elected office, but his connection to various leaders in the Democratic Party continued until his death. Nearly a century later, it would be a Democratic president who paid the final honor to Jefferson Davis:

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter went one up on Johnson, signing a bill restoring Davis’s full U.S. citizenship rights to bring a close to “the long process of reconciliation” after the Civil War.

It was Andrew Johnson who inadvertently ended up saving Davis’s life: had Johnson’s impeachment trial not exhausted the nation, Davis would have gotten a speedy trial, and most probably executed quickly thereafter.

Bringing Music to America: Marian Anderson

Marian Anderson was born in 1897 in Philadelphia, and even as a child, her musical talent was obvious. She was an excellent vocalist, and sang in the choir at the Union Baptist Church.

As a young adult, she travelled to Europe to get classical voice training and thereby put the finishing touches on her musical education. She was able to work with significant composers, performers, and conductors. It was also easier in Europe for her, as a Black woman, to have access to high-level specialists in the field of vocal music.

Anderson was involved with music at an advanced degree, as historian Kira Thurman writes:

Anderson spent much of the 1930s living in German-speaking Europe, where she studied and performed the music of German composers such as Franz Schubert, Johannes Brahms, and Hugo Wolf.

In 1957, President Eisenhower invited her to sing at his second inauguration. It was the first time an African American had performed at a presidential inauguration. Eisenhower invited Marian Anderson to sing at the White House on several different occasions.

In that same year, Eisenhower appointed her to be goodwill ambassador for the United States; in that capacity, she toured a number of countries. Eisenhower then appointed her to be a delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The next year, in 1958 Eisenhower named Marian Anderson to be a full delegate to the United Nations.

Although known as an American artist, Marian Anderson’s career began in Europe, as Kira Thurman notes:

She had actually become an international sensation much earlier: in 1935 at the Salzburg Festival in Austria. There, the conductor Arturo Toscanini told Anderson that she had a voice “heard once every hundred years.”

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan invited Marian Anderson to the White House, where he awarded her the National Medal of Arts.

The Spies and the Evidence: Soviet Operatives and the Venona Project

The Cold War, as commonly understood, lasted approximately from 1946 to 1990. But the history of Soviet espionage networks inside the United States goes back much further. One key element of those networks was the Communist Party in the U.S. (CPUSA).

Far from being a political party, taking positions on issues and nominating candidates for elections, the CPUSA was organized to steal military and diplomatic secrets, to influence American government decision-making, and to keep ready a sabotage organization. The CPUSA was prepared to use violence if the moment came for an armed revolution inside the United States.

The U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service was aware of the CPUSA’s activities. Sophisticated mathematics and technology were coordinated in the Venona Project, which confirmed “the involvement of American Communists with Soviet espionage during World War II,” in the words of Maurice Isserman.

The Venona project intercepted and decrypted messages to Moscow from operatives inside the U.S. These messages, directed to intelligence agencies in the Soviet Union, revealed details “about the involvement of several score (perhaps as many as 300) American Communists as accomplices of Soviet espionage during World War II.”

The Soviet Socialst government had a collection of intelligence agencies, with names like NKVD. The famous KGB wasn’t formed until 1954.

Although the Venona Project began yielding data as early as 1943, it was not made public until many years later. Even within the U.S. government, very few people knew about Venona. It was imperative to keep it secret, so that the Soviet Socialists didn’t know that Americans were able to intercept their communications, as Maurice Isserman writes:

“Venona” was the code name assigned a top-secret National Security Agency operation, whose existence was revealed to historians and the public only in 1995. During World War II, codebreakers from the United States Army’s Signal Intelligence Service (a precursor to the National Security Agency) began decrypting thousands of intercepted telegraphic cables sent from the Soviet Embassy and consulates in the United States to Moscow. Among the first decoded Venona cables was conclusive evidence that Soviet spies had managed to penetrate America’s most closely guarded wartime secret, the Manhattan Project. Later decoded messages helped lead F.B.I. agents to an American involved in atomic espionage.

Among other spies, Julius Rosenberg and his wife Ethel were discovered by the Venona Project. The Rosenbergs transmitted secret information about nuclear weapons to the Soviet. These transmissions enabled the Soviets to develop their own arsenal of highly destructive weapons. Small and large nations were hesitant to oppose or resist Soviet takeovers of weaker countries. Thus the Rosenbergs were complicit in the deaths of millions of people who died under these Soviet-sponsored dictatorships.

The Venona Project, which lasted in various forms until 1980, revealed not only contemporaneous Soviet espionage, but also earlier spy activity. Cases going back to the 1930s were uncovered:

From small beginnings in the 30’s, Soviet espionage efforts in the United States increased exponentially during the war years. Pro-Soviet Americans, many of them secret members of the Communist Party, working within such sensitive agencies as the State Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the C.I.A., provided K.G.B. agents with reams of useful information, ranging from well-informed political comments to purloined classified documents. Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White are among those whose long-suspected involvement in such activities seems to be confirmed by the Venona cables.

Some individuals, confronted with evidence from the Venona Project, quickly “defected” and began working for the Americans, and were able to provide even more information about the Soviet Socialist spy network inside the U.S. One such individual was “Elizabeth Bentley, the notorious ‘spy queen’ who gathered information for transmission to Moscow from dozens of Federal employees.”

Other Soviet agents did not cooperate with the U.S. government after their crimes were discovered. They were dealt with, but in low-profile ways, so as not to attract attention and alert the Soviets to the fact the the Americans were able to intercept their communications:

Some of those compromised by their activities during the war left Government service voluntarily; others departed under suspicion and pressure. A few, most notably Hiss, suffered legal consequences. One of the ironies of the Venona Project was that while it helped the F.B.I. detect spies, it did little to enable their prosecution by the Justice Department; the last thing American intelligence services wanted to see at the height of the cold war was a lengthy courtroom discussion of the means by which they were able to ferret out the opposition's agents.

So even after being discovered by the U.S. intelligence agencies, the “hidden landscape of Soviet espionage in the United States in the 30’s and 40’s” remained largely unknown. Only a few specialists inside the U.S. government knew about the Soviet spies, their activities, and how the Americans eventually discovered and deactivated them.

Most of these spies did not do their work because they needed money, or because the Soviets were blackmailing them, although both of those scenarios did occasionally occur. Most of them did it because they embraced the Soviet ideology. Whether they understood what the Soviets were really doing, or whether they were under the illusion of an idealized version of Soviet Socialism, is difficult to discern. Maurice Isserman writes:

Many of them, of course, understood perfectly well the real purpose of the persistent inquiries from Bentley and the other American go-betweens who came by trolling for information. Looking back at their actions and the consequences of those actions, knowing what we now know about the horrific character of the Soviet Union in the Stalin years, knowing also the ultimate fate of the Communist system and ideology, I find it difficult to make the imaginative leap necessary to understand why they did it.

In any case, the danger from Soviet Socialist espionage, from the 1930s up to the 1980s, was greater than most Americans knew. Happily, the heroism of American cryptographers during those years was also greater than most people knew.

The Early American Militia: The Structure of Democracy and Freedom

The early settlers of the Thirteen Colonies, i.e., the settlers of the region that would become the United States, were faced with questions about how to provide for their own defense. Each colony, and each village within each colony, formed a militia unit. A ‘militia’ unit is a group of trained and armed citizens who are not professional soldiers, who are not paid, and who are not part of the army.

Members of a militia are ordinary people who have regular jobs: lawyers, farmers, teachers, nurses, cooks, etc. When there is a need for defensive action, they meet their fellow militia members as a military unit. When the action is over, they return to their everyday lives.

During the 1600s and 1700s, the militia was the primary defensive force in British North America. The British army was present, but proved to be less effective, and more expensive, than the militia groups. Residents of the Thirteen Colonies resented the fact that they had to pay taxes to pay for this useless presence. As historians Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski write,

The most important response to the dangerous military realities was the creation of a militia system in each colony. The British military heritage, the all-pervasive sense of military insecurity, and the inability of the economically poor colonies to maintain an expensive professional army all combined to guarantee that the Elizabethan militia would be transplanted to the North American wilderness. No colonial institution was more complex than the militia. In many respects it was static and homogeneous, varying little from colony to colony and from generation to generation. Yet the militia was also evolutionary and heterogeneous, as diverse as the thirteen colonies and ever-changing within individual colonies.

The concept of the militia was shaped by democracy and equality. Rich or poor, men were equally obliged to serve in the militia, and served side-by-side. The militia was an expression of the community, and the people spoke of “our” militia.

The soldiers in the army, on the other hand, were not part of the community. They were from far away. They had no affection for, or loyalty to, the local villages. Quite the opposite: such soldiers were often problems for the neighborhood residents.

At the heart of the militia was the principle of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males. Colonial laws regularly declared that all able-bodied men between certain ages automatically belonged to the militia. Yet within the context of this immutable principle, variations abounded. While the normal age limits were from 16 to 60, this was not universal practice. Connecticut, for example, began with an upper age limit of 60 but gradually reduced it to 45. Sometimes the lower age limit was 18 or even 21. Each colony also established occupational exemptions from militia training. Invariably the exemption list began small but grew to become a seemingly endless list that reduced the militia's theoretical strength.

The community spirit grew as most families contributed in one way or another to the shared work of defending the land. The feeling of equality grew as elite men and ordinary men served together. The sense of democracy grew as the people of the village made decisions together.

The dangers to the settlers varied from decade to decade: Indians (“Native Amerians”), French, Spanish, and other forces attacked from time to time. Millett and Maslowski explain:

If a man was in the militia, he participated in periodic musters, or training days, with the other members of his unit. Attendance at musters was compulsory; militia laws levied fines for nonattendance. During the initial years of settlement, when dangers seemed particularly acute, musters were frequent. However, as the Indian threat receded, the trend was toward fewer muster days, and by the early 1700s most colonies had decided that four peacetime musters per year were sufficient.

The main weapons were muskets, hatchets, and swords. Gradually, the rifle replaced the musket.

Almost every home had a firearm anyway, because hunting was a fundamental way of providing food for families.

Militiamen had to provide and maintain their own weapons. Militia laws detailed the required weaponry, which underwent a rapid evolution in the New World. Initially a militiaman was armed much like a European soldier, laden with armor, equipped with either a pike or matchlock musket, and carrying a sword. But Indian warfare was not European warfare, and most of this weaponry proved of limited value. By the mid-1670s colonial armaments had been revolutionized. Armor, which made it difficult to traverse rugged terrain and pursue Indians, disappeared. Pikes were equally cumbersome and of little use against Indians, who neither stood their ground when assaulted nor made massed charges. At times the matchlock was superior to Indian bows and arrows, but its disadvantages were many. It took two minutes to load, and misfired approximately three times in every ten shots. The weapon discharged when a slow-burning match came in contact with the priming powder, but keeping the match lit on rainy or windy days was difficult, and the combination of a burning match and gunpowder in close proximity often resulted in serious accidents. The flintlock musket replaced the matchlock. Depending on flint scraping against steel for discharge, flintlocks could be loaded in thirty seconds and misfired less often. Swords remained common weapons, but colonists increasingly preferred hatchets for close-quarter combat. Although both weapons were valuable in a melee, hatchets were also useful for a variety of domestic purposes.

Almost everyone in the community contributed to the task of defense in some way. Those who weren’t directly in the militia could, e.g., provide materials and supplies for the militiamen, or tend to the house and land of a militiaman who was away from home on militia work.

Those with little money received equipment from the community. Those who weren’t actively part of the militia were sometimes still required to maintain weapons ready in their homes, as Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski note:

Militia laws emphasized the importance of a well-armed citizenry in numerous ways. To ensure that each man had the requisite weapons and accoutrements, colonies instituted a review of arms, imposing the duty. of conducting it on militia officers, muster masters, or other specially appointed officials. Every colony's law detailed how destitute citizens could be armed at public expense, and legislatures provided for public arsenals to supplement individually owned armaments. Colonies also required that even men exempted from attending musters should be completely armed and equipped.

To participate in the community’s militia was a duty and even an obligation, as Adam Winkler writes:

A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters — where their guns would be inspected.

Although the militia was a military concept, it shaped civilian culture and society, promoting a sense of mutuality and equality, and instilling a sense of duty, responsibility, and obligation into the individual citizens as they provided for their own defense, and participated in that defense, at the local level, not entrusting it to some far off imperial capital.

Originally instituted to protect the colonies from outside dangers, i.e., to keep the colonies safely a part of the empire, the militias would then be used to gain independence from the empire.

George Washington Visits a Synagogue: Religious Liberty in Action

As president of the United States, George Washington had a consistent, intentional, and long-lasting relationship with the Jewish people in the new country. He understood that not only the Americans, but also the rest of the world, would be watching to see if this new country would live up to the ideals stated in its founding documents.

At that time, the United States was unique in the world as a nation founded, not on the hereditary right of a dynastic family to rule, but rather on a set of concepts, as historian Yaari Nadav Tal writes:

President George Washington captured the new path his young nation was taking in his 1790 letter to the Jews of Newport. Unlike Europe, which still imposed liabilities based on religion and regulated the public expression of faith, the United States guaranteed people irrespective of their faith the equal enjoyment of religious freedom: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” The United States secured religious freedom not grudgingly but graciously: “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Jews in America were keenly aware of the fact that in England, and in some parts of Europe, Jewish people were not able to attain the status of a full citizen and that their civil rights were limited. Many of them had come to North America to seek full religious freedom and at the same time the right to participate fully in civic government.

To underscore the promise of America to these Jewish citizens, Washington not only wrote warmly to them, but also visited their synagogue. The act of the U.S. president setting foot into a synagogue was dramatic and radical.

Most heads of state in Europe or Great Britain didn’t do such things. The integrity of a nation founded on concepts is based on the consistency and honesty with which it applies those concepts to concrete specific situations. Washington understood that, at the very beginning of United States history, it was important for him to take such actions, as Yaari Nadav Tal explains:

On August 18, 1790, congregants of the Touro Synagogue of Newport, Rhode Island, warmly welcomed George Washington to both their place of worship and their city. Washington’s letter of response to the synagogue, delivered on the same day, has become famous for reinforcing the ideal of religious liberty in American life. Washington promised the synagogue more than mere religious tolerance, explaining that "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." The letter continued with the promise that "the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Washington understood that it was not despite his own firm religious beliefs that he could work to ensure the freedom for various other religions to be practiced, but rather that it was precisely because of his own beliefs that he was motivated to guarantee religious liberty to religions which differed from his own.

Washington was a Christian, and more specifically, he was an Anglican or Episcopalian. He was more than a mere member or attender of church. He was a vestryman and churchwarden, dedicating time and energy to his faith community.

The belief system to which he was committed demanded that he honor the religious liberties of other people, and the strength of his commitment was the force which drove him to ensure those freedoms for other faiths.

The 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment and the Monument Honoring its Men

Quickly after President Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, the first military unit composed of African Americans was formed. Many other units would be organized soon thereafter.

The 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment became famous during and after the U.S. Civil War. To honor the 54th’s soldiers, a monument was built in Boston, the city where the unit was organized. Philip Marcelo describes the carving: “Black men, rifles to their shoulders, march resolutely,” depicted in bronze, “on their way to battle.”

The towering bronze relief in downtown Boston captures the stirring call to arms answered by Black soldiers who served in the state’s famed Civil War fighting unit, which was popularized in the 1989 Oscar-winning movie “Glory.”

The monument was unveiled in 1897. The artist Augustus Saint-Gaudens had worked on it for fourteen years. Encouragement and funding for the cenotaph came from both Black and White citizen of Boston:

The creation of the memorial in the aftermath of the Civil War was championed by prominent Black Bostonians of the day.

Colonel Robert Gould Shaw was the commander of the regiment. His family was dedicated to the cause of ending slavery. They championed the 54th during the war, and cherished its memory afterward.

“The colonel’s family, a wealthy Boston” family, wanted to ensure that the monument would recognize the Black soldiers. The Shaw family, “strongly opposed to slavery, requested that” the monument “also honor the Black men who served and died” bravely and with committed perseverance “during their famed charge on Fort Wagner in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1863.”

The monument is also significant because it’s the nation’s first honoring Black soldiers, said Elizabeth Vizza, executive director of the Friends of the Public Garden, a group helping pay for a $3 million restoration of the monument, which started in earnest in May.

Saint-Gaudens spent 14 years creating a richly detailed bas relief, using Black men of different ages as models for his realistic soldiers. After it was unveiled to fanfare in 1897, American author Henry James declared the work “real perfection,” according to the National Park Service.

“This was a radical piece of art,” Vizza said. “It was not lost on people back then.”

For over a century, the monument has been a symbol and an inspiration to African Americans and their advancement toward civil rights. Philip Marcello continues:

Roughly half the regiment’s 600 soldiers were killed, wounded, captured or presumed dead following the failed assault on Fort Wagner, and their heroism inspired tens of thousands of Black men and others to sign up for the Union Army, helping turn the tide of the war.

Sgt. William Carney became the first Black man awarded the Medal of Honor for saving the regiment’s flag from capture. Two sons of prominent Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who had pushed Lincoln to allow Blacks to serve in the war, also fought at Fort Wagner.

The powerful and uplifting monument, created to “recognize the achievements of the Black soldiers” is located prominently in one of Boston’s more important neighborhoods — a neighborhood called Beacon Hill.

A Moral Conflict: To Use Federal Troops in an American City

It is generally a bad thing for the leader of a country, and especially the leader of a free country, to command troops into action inside the borders of his own land. Such behavior is usually associated with the worst types of dictators.

But are there times when it’s right or necessary?

President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower was faced with this question in 1957. He’d appointed Earl Warren to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Warren had presided over the famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruling. The decision had led to changes in the operation of various public school systems around the country.

Those changes met with fierce opposition in the city of Little Rock, Arkansas.

When the Democatic Party made Orval Faubus governor of that state, and when he complied by refusing to allow African American students to attend Little Rock Central High School, Eisenhower was faced with an instance of a local official directly and defiantly refusing to comply with a Supreme Court decision.

As a military leader with substantial experience, Ike knew that he could not allow this to continue. After discussions with Faubus and the consideration of various alternatives, Ike ordered the legendary 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock. If the Democratic Party would not allow the school to be desegregated and integrated, then the U.S. Army would do the job.

The soldiers of the 101st Airborne protected the Black students who wanted to attend school. The soldiers escorted the students into, and out of, school, and made sure that they were safe before, during, and after school.

It was an agonizing decision for Eisenhower. He knew that these students had the legal right to attend school, but he also knew that he was treading on thin ice to use troops inside the borders of the United States. He decided to go ahead with the action, saying that it was “a matter of justice.”

As historian Kasey Pipes explains:

The Little Rock crisis was the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. Eisenhower’s actions were watched by many, including Senator John F. Kennedy. At the time, JFK was somewhat critical of Ike’s handling of the crisis. Five years later, in 1962, in a deliberate effort to avoid what he viewed as Ike’s overreaction at Little Rock, President Kennedy sent only U.S. Marshals into Ole Miss during the integration crisis there. When the mobs overwhelmed the Marshals, Kennedy relented and sent federal troops. He even instructed his aides to draw up the executive order based on the Eisenhower order at Little Rock.

Ike not only fixed the situation in Little Rock, but he laid the foundation for JFK’s actions at the University of Mississippi.

Still, it was a painful moment for the nation. No country wants to see its own army required to enforce a court ruling.

No president relishes the thought of sending soldiers into an American city. Eisenhower agonized over it. The day after the 101st Airborne arrived in Little Rock, Ike told a friend it had been a painful decision, as difficult as ordering the D-Day invasion. Ike’s deliberation is a measure of his leadership.

Eisenhower expressed his determination to do the right thing in a televised address to the nation. His military training and composure allowed him to express his thoughts clearly and without passion. He was focused on implementing what others later called a matter of justice.

The IRS and Payroll Withholding: Taking People’s Money When They’re Not Aware

In 1942, Congress imposed the first major income tax increase in many years, and one of the harshest. Many people had never paid income tax before. Prior to that time, it was imposed on only the wealthiest people. The taxes were to be paid on March 15, 1943.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) realized that millions of people didn’t understand that they had to pay. They didn’t understand how much they had to pay, and that they’d need to save up all year long to make such a big payment all at once. The new tax law was creating a disaster. What would happen when the day came, and people weren’t able to pay?

The IRS is part of the Treasury Department and is responsible for collecting taxes.

The government didn’t want to file charges against millions of taxpayers. It wouldn’t have even been possible to do so, because there were so many people involved. The legal fees in many cases would have been greater than the anticipated tax revenue.

Hurriedly, the IRS hoped to make people aware of what they had to do, as historian Amity Shlaes writes:

The Treasury nervously launched a huge public relations campaign to remind Americans of their new duties. A Treasury Department poster exhorted citizens: “You are one of 50,000,000 Americans who must fill out an income tax form by March 15. DO IT NOW!” For wartime theatergoers, Disney had prepared an animated short film featuring citizen Donald Duck laboring over his tax return beside a bottle of aspirin. Donald claimed exemptions and dependent credits for Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

The eventual solution to the problem was the invention and implementation of the payroll withholding system. Invented by Beardsley Ruml, this system collected taxes all year long, taking a percentage of an employee’s pay before the employee received his pay. The beauty of this system is that people don’t have to worry about accidentally forgetting to save up to pay a massive, once-a-year tax bill. It’s automatically saved for them.

Ruml’s system was put into practice in mid 1943, and has been operating ever since.

This system was and is highly successful. Everyone who gets paid, with a few exceptions, has a bit of her or his pay confiscated every week or every month, and that confiscated money is saved up to pay that person’s annual tax bill. The government has reliable access to people’s money.

There is, however, a problem with this system. It has been in place nearly a century, so long that people often forget that it exists. Workers can forget that the government is taking their money on a regular basis. When employees feel that their pay is too small, they don’t realize that a significant percentage of their wages are being confiscated by the government.

If hourly workers were allowed to receive their full hourly wage, and if salaried workers were allowed to receive their full annual salary, they would suddenly experience a massive increase in disposable income.

The problem has been compounded by the fact that most of the fifty states, and a few cities, have also implemented payroll withholding programs. The government often takes 10%, 20%, or even 30% of a worker’s wages.

The payroll withholding system has not only allowed the government to take huge amounts of people’s money, but also to take it in a way that causes people to forget, or not to realize, that it’s being taken.

The Past Explains the Future: Hope and Optimism from America’s Founding

Major turning points in history often arise from a worldview which sees time as linear, not circular: a worldview which sees the world’s social and political trajectory as capable of changing, not as repetitive or rigid.

The revolutionary independence movement which appeared and expanded in North America in the 1750s was a forward-looking movement. Rather than envisioning an inevitable repetition of the status quo, the revolutionaries envisioned the self-conscious development of society and government. America’s revolutionary movement is and was hopeful.

As historian Stephen Tootle writes, America’s “political history is the fundamental basis of what makes America a land of hope.”

As Calvin Coolidge once explained, any act of truth-telling is an act of patriotism, because our system of government is based on a true understanding of human relationships. Truth and freedom were and are inseparable.

This forward-looking optimism is based on a sober realism: on a clear-eyed reading of history, which reveals humanity’s failures and crimes as well as humanity’s achievements and genius. “If the Founders correctly identified how human beings could govern themselves in a system of ordered liberty (and they did), then” citizens “should never have a reason to fear the true story of America.” The citizens of America know that America is not perfect, but they also know that America has offered hope and opportunity, justice and prosperity, freedom and peace — and offered it in larger quantities and offered it more reliably than any of the nations which preceded it on the face of the earth.

The narrative of the United States is a narrative of increasing freedom, justice, peace, and prosperity: continuous forward motion. Slaves gained their freedom. Women gained full access to the political process. Poor immigrants found a better standard of living.

“Searching self-criticism” is foundational, and in its proper context it is a hopeful exercise. National self-examination is part of the American process, because our constitutional system is not only capable of amendments and adjustments, but rather it is also based on them.

It is the adaptability of the United States which fosters hope and optimism. Unforeseen events, technological developments, and worldwide trends create a constantly changing environment onto which the timeless principles of the American Revolution can be applied. Citizens can be confident that these principles will find application in the future, and will benefit humanity when applied.

The Founders organized themselves and fought out of hope. They did not create slavery but laid the foundation for ending it. Subsequent generations immigrated here out of hope. Americans fought and died in wars out of hope. As Lincoln understood, “liberty to all” and the “promise of something better” drove people to work and unleash their creative energies, whereas nobody would fight or strive over a “mere change of masters.”

The American Revolution began in 1775. The United States was created as a sovereign entity in 1776. The Constitution was ratified and implemented in 1788. In a span of 13 years, American had created the world’s highest levels of personal political liberty, and the only country based on the concept of freedom. It was also the only country governed by an assembly of freely-elected representatives.

But America didn’t stop there. In less than a century, slavery was abolished. Women began voting in federal, state, and local elections in 1869. Already the freest nation on earth, the United States continued to increase its levels of freedom.

“Citizenship bestows both privileges and responsibilities,” adds Stephen Tootle. It is the responsibility of citizens to be familiar with America’s founding principles, and to transmit the essence of those principles to future generations.

A nation which preserves property rights and free markets preserves hope. Such a nation offers its citizens something which no other nation can offer: the opportunity for peace, justice, liberty, and prosperity.

Patterns of Events in the United States: History as a Narrative

Among the distinguishing factors that shape the nation’s history is the fact that “ideals drove America’s creation and success,” in the words of historian Stephen Tootle. The United States is the first modern state to be founded on ideas instead of on the hereditary claims of a dynasty.

By contrast, the other existing countries in the 1700s around the world were based on the fact that the right to rule was the property of a royal family. The property was passed down from one generation to another.

Because the United States was built on concepts, instead of on bloodlines, discussions of words like ‘justice’ and ‘liberty’ are central to the nation and its history.

As the first truly self-governing citizenry, it belongs not only to national history, but to world-historical history, to describe and analyze “what happened to the people of America once they governed themselves.” The word ‘experiment’ is often used as a label for the U.S. Constitution’s concept of a government composed of freely-elected representatives, and for the ‘e pluribus unum’ of American federalism.

The American Revolution owes some of its distinctive features to the un-revolutionary heritage that it borrowed from England. Americans applied concepts that had been formulated by British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke. The innovation was that the Americans applied these concepts more thoroughly and consistently than the British themselves had.

From Rhode Island’s 1652 abolition of slavery, under the leadership of Roger Williams, to the 1688 German Quaker petition against slavery in Pennsylvania, the nation’s ideals were largely in place prior to the 1776 creation of the nation. The Americans codified and clarified these ideals:

They fought a revolution to preserve an existing culture of self-government and further distinguished themselves by proclaiming their shared ideals. They governed themselves under a Constitution designed to put those ideals into action. When tested by slavery, expansion, immigration, and the challenges of democracy, Americans made the constitutional order work. When their brethren rebelled in order to create a government on a different basis, Americans preserved the system of ordered liberty as understood by the Founders.

The world of the mid 1700s disappeared with technology, industrialization, and changing global connections between nations — as other nations began to reinvent themselves on the American model.

The once-unique framework of a republic governed by freely elected representatives, a structure which made the United States a one-of-a-kind innovation among the nations of the world, would within two or three centuries become a common system of organizing a government. At the time of America’s founding, it was the only country to have elections in the significant modern sense. Now, many nations have elections.

The challenge of each new decade is to see how the United States will apply its founding principles to new situations. If it fails to find a way, then not only would the nation lose its identity, but the world would lose the hope which these principles offer to all people. “American political culture withstood the challenges of modernity and the various forms of totalitarianism that grew in response to it,” as Stephen Tootle notes.

How the United States applies the timeless axioms of its founding to contemporary situations is, Tootle argues, not only determines its domestic policy, but rather also becomes its foreign policy, as America allows the rest of the world to observe the ongoing experiment in empowering citizens to vote into existence their own government.

“The most important aspect of American foreign policy is proclaiming rights and demonstrating self-government,” Tootle concludes. Creatively and innovatively, Americans applied their founding principles to concrete situations, and in the process, offered tangible examples of liberty to the rest of the world: Theodore Roosevelt’s hosting of Booker T. Washington at a dinner in the White House in 1901; Calvin Coolidge’s affirmation of civil rights for African Americans, as the first sitting president to deliver a commencement address at a Historically Black College in 1924; Eisenhower’s determination to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

The United States demonstrated that, by keeping government weak and limited, a society can work toward those things which all people desire: freedom, prosperity, peace, and justice. America showed that property rights and free markets are the necessary preconditions for liberty, equality, and opportunity.

Why the Allies Fought: The Deeper Meanings of the WW2 Conflict

The Second World War was a global conflict between two groups of nations, but it was also a conflict between two economic systems, and two political ideologies.

On one side, there was the oppression and subjugation of nations: In Japan, the imperialist, nationalist, and militarist leaders, headed by Tojo, controlled the nation, to the detriment of ordinary Japanese people. In Italy, Mussolini’s fascists imposed conformity on the Italian people. In Russia, Stalin’s Soviet Socialism extracted compliance from citizens by terrorizing them. Hitler’s National Socialism enslaved the entire German nation and forced it to obey decrees from the government and from the party.

The people of Japan, Italy, Russia, and Germany were tyrannized by, in the words of Howard Zinn, “imperialism, racism, totalitarianism,” and “militarism.” The ideologies inflicted “unspeakable evil” on their own people, and then proceeded to make other nations the victims of their aggression.

England and France, joined later by the United States, were “fighting against racist totalitarianism,” as historian Mary Grabar explains. In the United States, African-Americans read and heard about Japan’s vicious racial hatred toward the Koreans and the Chinese. Black people in America absorbed this information with mixed emotions: they knew only too well the pain of such oppression, and felt a kinship with the Chinese and Koreans; many African-Americans were eager to join the U.S. military and liberate the victims of racism.

But Black people in the United States also knew that their own journey to legal equality was not yet over. Although slavery had been gone for seventy-eight years, measuring the span from the Empancipation Proclamation to Pearl Harbor, the final fulfillment of civil rights for African-Americans had not arrived by 1941.

Black Americans had made gains in those seventy-eight years, and they wanted to help oppressed people in other nations acquire those same gains; but Black Americans also wanted to continue their advancement to complete the last few steps toward full legal equality. The service of African-Americans in the U.S. military would yield a double benefit: not only would Black soldiers help to liberate the victims of National Socialism, but they would advance toward a better status by means of their military service. It was in the U.S. Army that African-Americans would attain more civil rights.

Not simply capitalism, but rather specifically free-market capitalism defeated the forces of National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, and Fascism. The free enterprise system was more flexible, more efficient, and more productive than the economic systems of Axis powers. So it was that Allies, which by war’s end included more than a dozen other countries, had economic advantages which were as important as the military ones.

Both politically and economically, the Allies came out of a long-standing cultural tradition which embraced equality and liberty. Writing about the U.S. war effort, Howard Zinn notes that “it was a war waged by a government whose chief beneficiary” was the ordinary citizen. By contrast, in Japan and Soviet Russia, “a wealthy elite” benefited from, and controlled, the government.

Japan’s war effort was “fought to benefit plutocrats,” as Mary Grabar notes. The aim of colonized eastern Asia was built around the desire for raw materials: oil, iron, steel, coal, etc.

Because the U.S. economy was structured around opportunity, motivated workers were able to outperform and outproduce other nations. Once the debate between the isolationists and interventionists had been resolved, entrepreneurship, creativity, and inventiveness flourished in the American business world.

Once the order was given to increase production for armaments and other military supplies, American factories were able to get close enough to meeting President Roosevelt's “seemingly impossible yearly production goals” to vaunt the Allies to victory, according to Victor Davis Hanson. The United States had “over twelve million in uniform,” but “suffered only about 416,000 combat casualties,” which was just slightly above “3 percent of those enrolled in the military” and was “proportionally the fewest combat casualties of the major powers.” American industries might have helped save American lives and win the war.

Japan’s attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December 1941 was a clarifying moment. The isolationists and interventionists united, and, as Howard Zinn writes, “almost all Americans were now in agreement — capitalists, Communists, Democrats, Republicans, poor, rich, and middle class — that this was indeed a people’s war.”

Because the Allies had not only superior military, technological, and economic resources, but rather also a cultural foundation of equality and liberty — admittedly not always perfectly fulfilled — the war’s end meant not only the defeat of the opposing countries, but rather also “a blow to imperialism, racism, totalitarianism, militarism, in the world.”

Black people in the United States saw that the war effort, the effort to stop the aggression of National Socialism and Fascism, would not only contribute to the liberation of oppressed peoples in other countries, but it would also be instrumental in obtaining civil rights. As historian Mary Grabar writes, “African Americans were fighting for the right to fight.”

Years before the United States entered the war, black leaders were supporting bills by Congressman Hamilton Fish to expand the opportunities for African Americans in the military beyond the support services to which they were relegated. The exploits of black soldiers in the Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American War, and in the Philippines were the subjects of lectures by black leaders that boosted the pride and morale of African Americans and also provided arguments for equal rights. In World War II, Africans Americans would once again exhibit their fighting ability, beginning with Dorie Miller on the ship West Virginia in Pearl Harbor rushing to wield an anti-aircraft gun (in spite of having been denied combat training), to the Tuskegee Airmen and the 761st Tank Battalion, the original “Black Panthers.” During 183 days of combat in the last two years of the war, the 761st “captured or liberated more than 30 major towns and four airfields,” “pierced the Siegfried line into Germany and fought in the Battle of the Bulge,” and liberated “at least one concentration camp, the Gunskirchen camp in Austria.”

The 761st Tank Battalion received the Distinguished Unit Citation.

Hope for advancement were rewarded when General Eisenhower, defying the segregationist edicts of FDR and of FDR’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. During the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944 and early 1945, Eisenhower needed maximum flexibility as he deployed and redeployed various units within the U.S. Army.

Roosevelt’s and Stimson’s segregation rules hampered Eisenhower’s ability to use his troops effectively. Violating the rules, Eisenhower assigned troops to various parts of the battle, regardless of their race. It was a major achievement in civil rights, as Black soldiers were able to fill new roles in the army, obtaining higher ranks and higher pay, and proving their skill and courage in combat.

After the war, African Americans voted enthusiastically for Eisenhower when he ran in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower, in turn, invited Martin Luther King to the White House.

Eisenhower worked with MLK and with Vice President Nixon to lobby Congress for the 1957 Civil Rights Act. They were successful, and together, the three of them also lobbied for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.

In WW2, the United States not only defeated the racism of Japan and of the Nazis, but they also advanced the cause of civil rights for African Americans.

Quickly Modernized: The U.S. Army During WW1

The U.S. Congress, persuaded by President Woodrow Wilson, declared war in April 1917. The first small groups of American soldiers arrived in Europe in June of that year. By October, enough U.S. soldiers were in France to have a significant impact on the fighting.

Most of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) was employed in France alongside British and French units. They faced the Germans on the Western Front. The actions of the AEF decisively tipped the balance of the war, ensuring a quick end to the fighting and a defeat for the Germans.

The AEF was composed mainly of units from the U.S. Army, but also included U.S. Marine Corps units, as well as a few units from the U.S. Navy. General John Pershing was in command of the entire AEF, as historians Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski write:

Measured by their own national experience, Pershing and his staff viewed the AEF’s accomplishments with awe and pride. When the war ended, 1.3 million Americans had served at the front in twenty-nine combat divisions. These troops had provided the margin in numbers that allowed the Allies to grind the German army into surrender.

American involvement in WW1 coincided with a global pandemic. The number of soldiers who died from the virus was greater than the number who died in combat.

The bulk of the U.S. force arrived at the beginning of 1918. The entire war, from June 1914 to November 1918, lasted approximately 52 months. The AEF was greatly involved for approximately 11 months, or about 21% of the war.

In 200 days of combat, the Americans had lost 53,402 men killed in action or died of wounds. Over 200,000 more were wounded in action. Disease deaths, largely associated with the flu epidemic of 1918, claimed the lives of another 57,000 soldiers at home and abroad.

The United States Civil War had ended in 1865. For over fifty years, there had not been a major war. While WW1 involved the use of far more ammunition than the Civil War, but far fewer combat deaths.

Of the various engagements which the AEF experienced, the most significant was the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. Almost all of the AEF fighting happened in France.

As amateur Civil War historians, some of Pershing’s officers could not help drawing comparisons with their Army’s heroic past. In area and type of terrain, the Meuse-Argonne operation resembled the Battle of the Wilderness in 1864. There the similarities ended, as the AEF’s struggle made the Wilderness pale by comparison. The Wilderness lasted four days, the Meuse-Argonne forty-seven. The Union Army fought with 100,000 men, the AEF with 1.2 million. In the course of the campaign Pershing’s artillerymen fired a tonnage of munitions that exceeded the totals fired by the entire Union Army during the course of the Civil War. gm About half the total AEF casualties occurred in the Meuse-Argonne.

Because the total number of casualties sustained by the U.S. Army was small fraction of the deaths sustained by British, German, French, and Russian armies, and because the AEF had been engaged in combat for only a fifth of the total duration of the war, the major European nations regarded the U.S. as a minor player in the war, and therefore thought that the U.S. should have only a minor role in the writing of the peace treaties that would determine the postwar world.

The Treaty of Versailles is the most famous peace agreement, and did much to shape international relations going forward from 1919. But there were several other treaties which answered some of the questions which Versailles left open.

As Woodrow Wilson learned at Versailles, however, the Allies did not view the American achievements and sacrifices with similar reverence. In a four-and-a-half-year war that claimed the lives of 8 million soldiers, the United States fought late and at relatively small cost.

The United States had spent billions of dollars on WW1, and was left with a massive debt at the end of the war. Not only was the U.S. effort underappreciated by the European powers, but it was also not well understood by the American public at home.

Few Americans had any military experience, and none had experienced a war as massive and as technologically advanced as WW1. The public was informed mainly, almost exclusively, by newspaper accounts of the fighting in France, and could not conceptualize the difficulties entailed in this type of war, as Allen Millett and Peter Maslowski write:

Despite its profligate mobilization, the United States bore only one-fifth of the Allies’ war costs. Quickly forgetting their relief at the arrival of the AEF’s big divisions in 1918, Allied generals minimized the American contribution to the final victory. The Germans convinced themselves after the war that they had been defeated by the war-weary revolutionaries at home and the British at the front. As the AEF’s generals expected, few of their countrymen appreciated the scope and complexity of the American war effort.

Historians in later years were able to appreciate the crucial role which the U.S. played in the war.

If the AEF had a pivotal role in the war, the war also had a major role in the history of the U.S. Army. In a short period of time, the army was modernized. Prior to WW1, technologies like airplanes, machine guns, tanks, poison gas, etc., were marginally present, if at all, in the U.S. military.

Yet for all the AEF’s problems, its role in the Allied victory was crucial, and the Americans who fought in France, professionals and citizen-soldiers alike, knew they had participated in a critical turning point in their nation’s military history. They had gone to Europe, and they had fought a mass, industrialized war with allies against a modern national army noted for its expertise. “Over there,” they had seen the face of future war.

A song titled “Over There” was popular during the war, referring to the scene of the action in France. The physical distance — thousands of miles — between the homes of Americans and the battlefields of WW1 was matched by the developmental distance traversed by the army: from a nineteenth-century military centered around the horse to a twentieth-century military centered around mechanized warfare.

American soldiers returned home with both physical and psychological scars. Some additionally suffered lifelong neurological damage from poison gas attacks. The ordinary soldier may not have understood the historical development in which he’d participated, but he understood the trauma and horror of having witnessed the violent loss of life on a massive scale.

Woodrow Wilson: Progressivism Fuels Racism and Racism Fuels Progressivism

One man has served as a symbol for two things: Woodrow Wilson is a symbol for the Progressivist movement, and he is a symbol for egregious racism. Harvard Professor Gautam Mukunda writes that Wilson’s “extreme racism” led him to “views and actions” that were and are “abhorrent.”

When President Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House — the dinner took place in October 1901 — Woodrow Wilson was furious, and reacted by using hateful and inappropriate racial epithets. Wilson’s vulgar language was unacceptable by the social standards of his era, as Gautam Mukunda explains:

He discouraged Black students from attending Princeton and segregated the (previously integrated) federal workforce.

Wilson’s racism was perhaps the most obvious feature of his leadership of the Progressive movement, but it was not the only one. Other features of his career and his policies including violating the free speech rights of millions of Americans: During WW1, anyone who opposed Wilson’s actions could be arrested for merely expressing an opinion.

In fact, however, Wilson’s record as President was disastrous, and his failures were the foreseeable products of his own shortcomings, not difficult circumstances or bad luck.

Wilson’s attitudes and actions were an extension of Progressivism and of the Democratic Party. Wilson was supported and elected by a movement and by a party that gave in to its deepest desires.

As a candidate, Wilson was an impressive speaker and writer, giving the impression that he was wise and intelligent, and that he would make thoughtful decisions. The record of his choices, however, proved problematic.

But his flaws stretch beyond bigotry. Understanding how someone like him could become President illuminates a common but all too often devastating mistake made in leader selection — picking someone based on their perceived talent instead of their real record. This creates the potential for a high impact, but often disastrous, leader.

Wilson was shockingly unprepared. He had never been employed in any kind of business. He had no military experience. His one attempt at real, for-profit activity, had been to try to start a law firm. It went bankrupt in less than a year.

Wilson was the least experienced person ever elected President. When he received the nomination his only political experience was 18 months as Governor of New Jersey. He was a darling of Progressives because of his attempted reforms at Princeton. He passed significant reforms as Governor, but so alienated the legislature’s Democrats — his own party — that they worked to elect Republicans in the 1911 legislative election just to harm Wilson.

His racism and his disregard for individual political liberty made Woodrow Wilson a rockstar among the Progressives and in the Democratic Party. A small handful of Democrats understood Wilson’s lack of leadership skills, but the majority of people in his party were unaware of Wilson’s poor management habits.

Wilson’s rhetorical skills and popularity with Progressives nonetheless made him a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Although he was not expected by anyone — including himself — to win, after 45 ballots a series of backroom maneuvers threw him the nomination.

“The bigotry that stained his presidency” was only one of Wilson’s flaws. “Wilson’s Presidency was tumultuous” and included

raids by his Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, which interned thousands of people without trials. The most important events, however, were unquestionably America’s entry into the First World War and Wilson’s role in the peace negotiations afterwards. His failed attempt to secure Senate ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and American entry into the League of Nations crippled the League and the post-war settlement, setting the stage for the Second World War.

Woodrow Wilson was not only a bitter racist; he not only disregarded individual political liberty; he also was temperamental and highly defensive about any form of criticism or dissent regarding his own views or actions. Not only did he reject criticism from the Republican Party, but he reacted in extreme ways to even the slightest questioning from within his own Democratic Party or from within his own Progressivist movement. His ego was large and fragile; he was a “prima donna.”

Not Fast Enough: North American Colonies Want Quicker Action Toward Abolition

By the mid 1600’s, the thirteen British colonies in North America had developed their own identity. From 1607, when Jamestown was founded as an English outpost, and saw itself as nothing more, to the 1650s, when Roger Williams was the leader of the abolitionist colony of Rhode Island, the “colonists” became “Americans.” While they saw themselves as part of the British Empire — indeed, the appeals made to London in the early 1770s were appeals made on the basis of British citizenship — they began also to see themselves as Americans.

From the earliest moments of this identity and its formation, Africans and African-Americans were part of it. Not only were people of African descent, but also, and especially, free Africans were integral to the new concept of “American.”

By 1641, at the latest, free Africans were understood as having a status which was different and separate from enslaved people. The contrast of “free” Africans to enslaved Africans contained within itself the seeds of a powerful anti-slavery movement which would emerge within a decade, as historian Paul Heinegg documents:

When they arrived in Virginia, Africans joined a society that was divided between master and white servant, a society with such contempt for white servants that masters were not punished for beating them to death. They joined the same households with white servants — working, eating, sleeping, getting drunk, and running away together. Some of these first African slaves became free. John Geaween (Gowen), “a negro servant,” was free by 1641. Francis Payne of Northampton County paid for his freedom about 1650 by purchasing three white servants for his master’s use. Emanuell Cambow (Cumbo), “Negro,” was granted fifty acres in James City County in 1667. John Harris, “negro,” was free by 1668 when he purchased fifty acres in York County.

The fact that “free” Africans — and even at this early stage, it is reasonable to speak of them as African-Americans — were able to marry, own land, be named as owners of property in legal documents, and even interact in the larger, English-dominated society, fanned the flames of the abolitionist movement.

The abolitionists pointed to the fact that the free Blacks were acknowledged as having the full legal status of persons. Enslaved Blacks, the abolitionists reasoned, were therefore logically also fully persons in an legal or moral sense, and slavery therefore a violation of their status as persons.

As free Africans grew in number, and further established themselves in society, their very existence was fuel to the anti-slavery movement. Paul Heinegg reports:

A number of men and women of African descent living on the Eastern Shore gained their freedom in the seventeenth century. There were at least thirty-three African Americans in Northampton County in the 1670s who were free, later became free, or had free children. They represented one-third of the taxable African Americans in the county. By the mid-seventeenth century, some free African Americans were beginning to be assimilated into colonial Virginia society. Many were the result of mixed-race marriages. Francis Payne was married to a white woman named Amy by September 1656 when he gave her a mare by deed of jointure. Elizabeth Key, a “Mulatto” woman whose father had been free, successfully sued for her freedom in Northumberland County in 1656 and married her white attorney, William Greensted. Francis Skiper was married to Ann, a African American woman, before February 1667/8 when they sold land in Norfolk County. Peter Beckett, a “Negro” slave taxable from 1671 to 1677 in Northampton County, married Sarah Dawson, a white servant. Hester Tate, an English woman servant in Westmoreland County, had several children by her husband James Tate, “a Negro slave to Mr. Patrick Spence,” before 1690.

Among the thirteen colonies, there were regional variations. While Virginia, generally reckoned to be a “southern” colony, was home to free Blacks by, at the latest, 1641, the northern colonies tended to be more energetic in their abolitionist tendencies than some of the southern colonies, as Paul Heinegg notes:

The history of free African Americans families in colonial New York and New Jersey is quite different from Virginia and North Carolina. Most were descended from slaves freed by the Dutch West India Company between 1644 and 1664 or by individual owners.

The abolitionist movement was not patient. It quickly took action. While seeing themselves as British subjects, the colonists perceived British headway toward ending slavery as too slow. In a truly revolutionary step, Roger Williams, a pastor and theologian, led the Rhode Island colony to abolish slavery, as John Barry explains:

Rhode Island demonstrated that the seeds Williams had planted had taken deep root, and that the plantation believed in freedom as a principle. It outlawed slavery — an extraordinary action, likely the first in the world, and a reflection of the beliefs of both Williams and Gorton. On May 23, 1652, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed the following law.

Roger Williams was involved in a variety of spiritual groups: the Anglican Church, the Puritan Separatists known as Pilgrims, and the Baptists. While he was connected to each of these groups, he was not clearly a member of any of them. Rather, he sought to pursue the clearest form of the Christian faith that he could find.

It was his goal of genuine Christianity that caused Roger Williams to steadfastly oppose slavery. Under his influence, the colony of Rhode Island adopted the following law:

Whereas, there is a common course practiced amongst English men to buy “negers,” to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever; for the preventing of such practices among us, let it be ordered, that no black mankind or white be forced to covenant bond or otherwise to serve any man or his assignes longer than ten years, or until they come to be twenty four years of age if they be taken in under fourteen, from the time of their coming within the liberties of this Colony; and at the end or term of ten years to set them free, as the manner is with the English servants. And that man that will not let them go free or shall sell him away elsewhere to that end that they may be enslaved to others for a longer time, he or they shall forfeit to the Colony forty pounds.

As historian John Barry notes, “the law was never repealed.” More than two hundred years before the U.S. Civil War, before Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, and before the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, free Blacks had established themselves as part of North American society, and their presence had energized the abolitionist movement to the point that it outpaced British steps toward ending slavery.

It is a deep historical irony that the North American colonies, and later the United States, had at first moved faster than England toward abolishing slavery. It is ironic because England later achieved this goal ahead of America: England and the British Empire ended slavery decades before the United States did.

In 1815, the Vienna Congress ended slavery in much of territories controlled by Britain and by various European nations. While slavery was not an institution in Britain, and not an institution in Europe, it existed in other parts of the world where Britain and Europe had influence.

So it was that between 1815 and the final actions taken Prime Minister William Wilburforce, slavery was ended in those parts of the world controlled by European or British interests. Wilburforce had led a series of Parliamentary actions against slavery from 1807 to 1834.

Slavery in the United States did not end until the Emanicpation Proclamation of 1863 and the war’s end in 1865.

The end of slavery in the United States motivated other nations to end slavery: Brazil ended slavery in 1888, Cuba in 1886, Madegascar in 1896, Egypt in 1904, China in 1909, Thailand in 1905, Morocco in 1925, and Yemen in 1962.

Redesigning the Military: America at the Turn of the Century

In the late 1800s, the United States had to choose how much money to spend on its navy, and how much on its army. Did the nation need a large army, or a large navy, or both?

Encouraged by the Monroe Doctrine, America had taken on the role, repeatedly, of defending smaller nations in South America and in Central America from the imperialism of powerful Asian and European nations. Likewise, America defended some islands in the Pacific.

It seemed, therefore, that a large navy was the most useful form of military power. So American political leaders focused on paying for large and powerful fleets of battleships to be built. The following paragraph from a history books talks about this time around the turn of the century:

With uncharacteristic restraint, Theodore Roosevelt assessed American military policy at the dawn of a new century: “I believe we intend to build up a good navy, but whether we build up even a respectable little army or not I do not know; and if we fail to do so, it may well be that a few years hence ... we shall have to learn a bitter lesson....” Even though he had more insight into world politics than most of his countrymen, Roosevelt could not have predicted in 1900 that in less than two decades the United States would be embroiled in a world war or even that the nation would enter that war with standing forces beyond the imagination of policymakers in the nineteenth century.

As military technology modernized, the navy went from wooden ships to steel ships, from medium-sized ships to huge battleships, and from sailing ships to ships with powerful engines. The increased sophistication required “standing” military forces.

A “standing” navy or a “standing” army means having a large number of trained soldiers and sailors, and equipment for them, even during years of peace when there is no warfare. The opposite of a “standing” military is to have very few soldiers and sailors, and very little equipment, and then to try to get all of that together quickly when a war begins.

Because of the increasing complexity of military systems, it was not possible to quickly assemble an army and a navy on short notice. The nation needed to keep soldiers, sailors, and their equipment ready at all times.

The vast distances across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans kept America safe from attacks on the east coast and the west coast. Good relationships with Canada and Mexico kept America safe from the north and the south. Although there had been tensions and brief skirmishes with Mexico, there had been no threat of real war with Mexico for nearly a century. The United States felt that it did not need a large army to defend itself. It would rely on a navy for defense.

Officers in the army and navy gained knowledge about their equipment, and about tactical ways to use that equipment. This required the political leaders to trust the military more, because the politicians could not be expected to understand the technical details about the equipment and its use.

The political leader kept control over when and where the military would be used: this is called “civilian control” because a political leader is not allowed to be a member of the military, and the military leaders are not allowed to be elected to government offices. Military leaders were and are not engaged in the political process, and remain neutral in elections and in debates between political parties. Both Democrats and Republicans can trust the military, because it is neutral. Here's another paragraph from a history book:

However inadequate those forces were, they represented a fundamental change in American policy. The shift in policy produced an essential dependence upon a standing battlefleet to protect the United States from foreign invasion and reduced dependence upon coastal defense artillery and fortifications, backed by military forces. It also increased dependence upon the Navy and the regular Army for military tasks beyond the continental United States. At the same time, the political elite gained increased confidence in the skill and political neutrality of the Army and Navy officer corps and became more willing to institutionalize military advice and accept military professionalism as compatible with civilian control. Both groups shared an interest in the reform of the militia as the nation’s reserve force for land operations and the creation of federal reserve forces for both naval and military mobilization in case of a major war. They also urged the accelerated application of new technology to military operations, especially improved ordnance, the internal combustion engine, the airplane, and electronic communications.

From the early history of the United States, going back to the 1770s, reserve forces called “militias” had been maintained by local governments: by cities, counties, and states. As a result of the higher levels of technology, there was a trend toward having the national government supervise and organize reserve forces. This allowed the reserves to be trained and equipped in the same way across the entire nation, so that when needed, soldiers from Massachusetts could work efficiently with soldiers from Wisconsin, and soldiers from Connecticut could work efficiently with soldiers from Minnesota, for example.

As civilian political leaders trusted military officers, and worked with them, both groups saw that planning and developing for new technology would be an important feature of the military in the future. Horses would be replaced by trucks and tanks. Hand-carried notes would be replaced by telephones, telegraphs, and radio. Airplanes would play an important role in modern warfare.

The United States had no major wars between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the beginning of World War One in 1914. The Spanish-American war had been a small operation. Even though there were no big wars during this era, the American military was redesigned into a more modern organization, both in terms of technology, and in terms of its management, planning, and administration.