British-American colonies which became the United States
POPULARITY
4 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
2 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
2 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
3 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
3 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
4 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
2 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
2 episodes with Thirteen Colonies
Triskaidecaphobes watch out! Celebrate 13 years of GJB with (what turned out to be) an All-Quiz all around this auspicious number. Dust off your JNCOs and Doc Martens for "Pop Culture Jeopardy: The 13 Year-Old Chris Edition." Test your classic trivia smarts - can you name the 13th thing? Colin gets patriotic with a quiz about the Thirteen Colonies. And let your sweat drip down as we count down the points in the 13Q challenge. Also: BEGOTs For advertising inquiries, please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On this episode, I'm joined by Julien Creuzet, the Afro-descendant French Caribbean artist who has his first institutional solo exhibition on view now through June 1, 2025 at The Bell at Brown University in Providence Rhode Island. In the episode Creuzet shares his artistic journey and passion for making exhibitions where he can have a discussion through art. His work spans various mediums including sculpture, poetry, video, music, and more. Here, he's reimagined his French Pavillion from the 60th Venice Biennale for The Bell, focusing on water as a site of both historical and contemporary traumas and emancipatory futures. Creuzet's artistic practice has long referenced legacies of colonialism, and his challenge to the architecture and history of the French Pavilion extends to Brown University's campus and Providence's centrality within the Black Atlantic. He delves into the autonomy in his creative process and how identity influences his work's adaptability across different cultural and political contexts. The exhibition reflects on the colonial history of Martinique, connections between different regions, and the fluidity of human identity. Brown is situated near the Providence River, one of the many Rhode Island ports through which the largest number of enslaved Africans entered the Thirteen Colonies prior to 1774. Triangulated with Africa and the Caribbean in the 18th century, the shipping industry of Rhode Island evolved to be deeply enmeshed with the U.S. cotton industry as the region became a center of textile production in the 19th century. Creuzet is fascinated by the watery connection between Venice, the Caribbean island of Martinique where his family has lived for generations, and Providence, conceptualizing the migration of the pavilion across a Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean dense with histories that have long informed his work. The presentation at Brown is of a different viscosity, an adaptation to Providence waterways and colonial thematics that are present on campus and loom large across the region.
Discover the historical context behind today's headlines with this comprehensive look into U.S.-Canada relations. Canada and the USA could have been a single country if history had unfolded differently. During the American Revolution, the Thirteen Colonies invited Canada to join, but it remained loyal to Britain. Later, the War of 1812 reinforced their separation. Had Canada joined voluntarily or been annexed, shared language, economy, and culture might have unified them under one government, creating a vast North American superstate. However, Canada’s strong ties to Britain and its preference for gradual independence maintained its distinct identity. Despite their similarities, differing political systems, governance styles, and historical allegiances ultimately kept them separate nations. Check out the YouTube version of this episode at https://youtu.be/6NiH3lIJwdM which has accompanying visuals including maps, charts, timelines, photos, illustrations, and diagrams. Dan Snow’s History Hit podcast at https://amzn.to/40Rvtc6 History of USA books available at https://amzn.to/4ij5n9E History of CANADA books available at https://amzn.to/4kQOrZA ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's Books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio credit: Dan Snow’s History Hit: episode - Why Isn't Canada the 51st State? (Feb. 17, 2025). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Sons of Liberty was an underground Patriot political organization that formed in the Thirteen Colonies in the lead-up to the American Revolution.
fWotD Episode 2738: Daniel Boone Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Saturday, 2 November 2024 is Daniel Boone.Daniel Boone (November 2 [O. S. October 22], 1734 – September 26, 1820) was an American pioneer and frontiersman whose exploits made him one of the first folk heroes of the United States. He became famous for his exploration and settlement of Kentucky, which was then beyond the western borders of the Thirteen Colonies. In 1775, Boone founded the Wilderness Road through the Cumberland Gap and into Kentucky, despite resistance from Native Americans. He founded Boonesborough, one of the first English-speaking settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains. By the end of the 18th century, more than 200,000 people had entered Kentucky by following the route marked by Boone.He served as a militia officer during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), which in Kentucky was fought primarily between American settlers and British-allied Indians. Boone was taken in by Shawnees in 1778 and adopted into the tribe, but he resigned and continued to help protect the Kentucky settlements. He also left due to the Shawnee Indians torturing and killing one of his sons. He was elected to the first of his three terms in the Virginia General Assembly during the war and fought in the Battle of Blue Licks in 1782, one of the last battles of the American Revolution. He worked as a surveyor and merchant after the war, but went deep into debt as a Kentucky land speculator. He resettled in Missouri in 1799, where he spent most of the last two decades of his life, frustrated with legal problems resulting from his land claims.Boone remains an iconic, if imperfectly remembered, figure in American history. He was a legend in his own lifetime, especially after an account of his adventures was published in 1784, making him famous in America and Europe. After his death, he became the subject of many heroic tall tales and works of fiction. His adventures—real and legendary—helped create the archetypal frontier hero of American folklore. In American popular culture, Boone is remembered as one of the foremost early frontiersmen, even though mythology often overshadows the historical details of his life.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 09:32 UTC on Friday, 8 November 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Daniel Boone on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Amy.
Welcome to HMSC Connects! where we go behind the scenes of four Harvard museums to explore the connections between us, our big, beautiful world, and even what lies beyond. For this week's episode, host Jennifer Berglund is speaking with Wendel White, a photographer, educator, cultural worker, and the 2021 recipient of the Peabody Museum's Robert Gardner Fellowship in Photography.
On this day in 1754, Benjamin Franklin published the famous “Join, or Die” political cartoon.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
fWotD Episode 2521: John Littlejohn (preacher) Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Saturday, 30 March 2024 is John Littlejohn (preacher).John Littlejohn (December 7, 1756 – May 13, 1836) was an American tradesman and Methodist preacher who served as sheriff of Loudoun County, Virginia, during the War of 1812. Born in Penrith, Cumberland, he briefly attended trade school in London before returning to Penrith. When he was around twelve years old, Littlejohn immigrated to the Thirteen Colonies to pursue various apprenticeships under tradesmen in Virginia and Maryland. While not particularly religious as a youth, he was inspired by Methodist revivalist sermons and began service as a circuit rider in 1776, during the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.In his preaching, he traveled across the early United States, including Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington, D. C. After several years of itinerancy he settled in Leesburg, Virginia. There he served as a local preacher and saddler for several decades, and occasionally as a county magistrate, sheriff, and tax collector. As Loudoun County sheriff during the 1814 British raid on Washington, he protected a safehouse containing the relocated National Archives, including the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. In 1818, he moved with his family to Kentucky, where he served as a land agent, preaching alongside his work during travel across the state. He retired to Logan County in southern Kentucky, where he became a slaveholder. He died in 1836, after sixty years of preaching.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:32 UTC on Saturday, 30 March 2024.For the full current version of the article, see John Littlejohn (preacher) on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Brian Standard.
The memorable and noticeable events in First Turnings particularly include * Infrastruture * Exploration * Seeking out corruption, in whatever form it's expected to exist. Rebuilding St. Peter's Basilica falls under the first category, especially when it's being rebuilt for the first time in over 1000 years. Americans learn of the founding of Jamestown as part of their country's history, as the first successful English colony in the New World and the precursor to the Thirteen Colonies that would eventually rebel against the British. It can also be looked at as the start of the British Empire, and as embodying a spirit of exploration in the aftermath of the victory over Spain. All of which make it an appropriate instance of a First Turning landmark. In 1714, the British Parliament approved The Longitude Prize, which offered monetary rewards to anyone who could make it possible for ships to effectively determine their longitude. The smallest prize was £10,000 - the equivalent of millions of dollars today. The Kingdom of Great Britain was created by The Acts of Union in 1707. Before then, one would properly refer to the English Parliament, and after to the British Parliament. This epsode crosses over that point in time between the start and the end, so the incorrect adjective may have slipped in once or twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707 The Global Positioning System (GPS) might be considered a comparable sort of infrastructure, but it was created over a long enough period that associating it with a specific Turning is difficult. It also required infrastructure (namely rockets that could put satellites in orbit), and was implemented in short order once those were available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System In 1804, Lewis and Clark's "Corps of Discovery" heads north and west from where the Missouri and Mississippi rivers meet, attempting to find a way to the Pacific Ocean. The First Turning encourages Exploration, which continues to use the governmental infrastructure set up during the previous Fourth Turning, but avoids the complications of a open warfare.... Expanding infrastructure is one of the key indicators of the First Turning, and the transcontinental railroad was an infrastructure priority for the United States in the 19th Century. The organizational strengths and focus that enable infrastructure and exploration are not always aimed at such noble pursuits. Sometimes they find internal enemies, or at least try to seek them out. The fear of Communists infilitrating the entertainment industry led the U.S. Government to pursue a group that became known as The Hollywood Ten. As this hits the edge of the map for the First Turning, we continue on with a short description of our final historical period, the Third Turning, and how we'll be choosing our landmarks there.
fWotD Episode 2465: Brother Jonathan (novel) Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Saturday, 3 February 2024 is Brother Jonathan (novel).Brother Jonathan: or, the New Englanders is an 1825 historical novel by American writer John Neal. The title refers to Brother Jonathan, a popular personification of New England and the broader United States. The story follows protagonist Walter Harwood as he and the nation around him both come of age through the American Revolution. The novel explores cross-cultural relationships and highlights cultural diversity within the Thirteen Colonies, stressing egalitarianism and challenging the conception of a unified American nation. It features mixed-race Anglo-Indigenous characters and depicts them as the inheritors of North America. The book's sexual themes drew negative reactions from contemporary critics. These themes were explicit for the period, addressing female sexual virtue and male guilt for sexual misdeeds.Literature scholars have praised Brother Jonathan's extensive and early use of realism in depicting American culture and speech. Using phonetic transcriptions, the dialogue documents a wide range of regional accents and colloquialisms. Included in the dialogue is a likely-accurate depiction of American Indian English, and what may be American literature's earliest attempt to express a wide range of emotion using children's natural speech patterns. Neal's characterizations of American character and speech were praised in the UK but derided in the US. The author nevertheless considered them central to developing an American literature distinct from British precedent.Neal wrote the original manuscript while crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824, then revised it in London many times before convincing William Blackwood of Edinburgh to publish it in mid-1825. It is Neal's longest work and possibly the longest single work of American fiction until well into the twentieth century. The editing process was the most laborious of Neal's career and resulted in a number of inconsistencies in the plot. The author fashioned many of the deleted sections into separate works he published later. Considered one of America's top novelists at the time, Neal wrote Brother Jonathan with a British audience in mind in order to boost his reputation internationally. It was a financial failure that received mixed but mostly warm reviews at the time. Twenty-first century readers are generally unaware of the book, and many scholars consider it too complex to be considered good.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:42 UTC on Saturday, 3 February 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Brother Jonathan (novel) on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Kendra Standard.
The new name for the former Thirteen Colonies represented a cohesive identity that united them under a common ...
In a provocative new book, historian Eli Merritt argues that the Thirteen Colonies only overcame their differences and united into a single entity due to an existential fear of civil war, collapse, and invasion. That fear is now gone. This week on Deconstructed, Merritt joins Ryan Grim to discuss his new book, “Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution.” Merritt argues that the founders — motivated by surviving as an independent government — united to avoid a civil war between the colonies. The “survivalist interpretation” of the nation's founding, he explains, led to a historic “shotgun wedding”: a compromise-laden journey leading to the Declaration of Independence and a failure to confront slavery.If you'd like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/give, where your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference.And if you haven't already, please subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. And please go and leave us a rating or a review — it helps people find the show. If you want to give us additional feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Opposition to the British crown began years before the battles of the American Revolutionary War broke out in the Thirteen Colonies, and that opposition took many forms, like riots and boycotts. A Scotsman named James Aitken sympathized with the rebels, and stood by them by setting British dockyards on fire – if the Royal Navy didn't have any ships, then England couldn't go to war with the colonies, he believed. Let's talk about who James was, and how he wanted to be an American hero. Executive Producers: Maria Trimarchi and Holly Frey Producer & Editor: Casby BiasSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today we have got your whole family covered - from lap listeners to your grandpa and everyone in between! There are books in every shape and size to lean into the many stories of America as we approach Independence Day. Dive in and enjoy! Books mentioned in this episode: Picture Books: John, Paul, George, and Ben by Lane Smith The Fourth of July Story by Alice Dalgliesh We the People: The Constitution of the United States by Peter Spier Unspoken by Henry Cole Elementary Chapter Books: The Yearling by MK Rawling The Call of the Wild by Jack London West of Boston: Yankee Rhymes and Doggerel and Picture Book of the Revolution's Privateers by James Daugherty Paul Revere's Ride by Longfellow, Illustrated by Charles Santore America's Paul Revere by Esther Forbes Junior High/High School: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes The American Revolution by Bruce Bliven Jr. The Story of the Thirteen Colonies by Clifford L. Alderman Adult: Gone With the Wind by M Mitchell Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry The Great Gatsby by FS Fitzgerald A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by B Smith Abigail Adams by Woody Holton The Declaration of Independence George Washington's Secret Six by Brian Kilmeade and Dan Yeager How The States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein
In 1780, the American War for Independence is at a stalemate. The British, eager to crush the rebellion once and for all, decide to change strategies and invade the American south. There, they will face not just the Continental Army, but also the backwoods militia who dominate the inland United States. Meanwhile, the French and the Spanish will deal blow after blow to the British Empire, threatening not just Britain's status in North America, but her dominance over world trade. With few friends on the world stage, Parliament faces a bitter truth: to save the Empire, they must sacrifice the Thirteen Colonies. Map of the southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War: https://www.battlefields.org/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg_original/public/thumbnails/image/Southern-Campaign-Map-%28June-2020%29.jpg?itok=BHGUi5Z5 SUBSCRIBE TO RELEVANT HISTORY, AND NEVER MISS AN EPISODE! Relevant History Patreon: https://bit.ly/3vLeSpF Subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/38bzOvo Subscribe on Apple Music (iTunes): https://apple.co/2SQnw4q Subscribe on Google Music: https://bit.ly/30hUTRD Relevant History on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3eRhdtk Relevant History on Facebook: https://bit.ly/2Qk05mm Official website: https://bit.ly/3btvha4 Episode transcript (90% accurate): https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vR_3pYtLMjmaO6VOaFPuVsoXKJZ1Rv71vxXrxbdM_xVoOAYweMlT7BmPdvOaEvO-r9QRlTzTKFgMZjY/pub Music credit: Sergey Cheremisinov - Black Swan PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY: Spain and the Independence of the United States: An Intrinsic Gift by Thomas E. Chavez: https://amzn.to/40V0XN1 The American Revolution: A Global War by Richard Ernest Dupuy: https://amzn.to/3K8K8at Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution by Dan L. Morrill: https://amzn.to/3KOJtwJ 100 Decisive Battles from Ancient Times to the Present, by Paul K Davis: https://amzn.to/3BBx1Ld George Washington – A Military Life by Edward G Lengel: https://amzn.to/3Jc5kMs General George Washington: A Military Life by Edward G. Lengel: https://amzn.to/3lowoQB Valiant ambition : George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick: https://amzn.to/3yLXmoe The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon by John Ferling: https://amzn.to/3JOdJXJ Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner: https://amzn.to/3Lv5bqb
Donna and Lonna celebrate Black History Month by exploring the work of Jessica Harris, author and food historian and also talk about the cookbook "Jubilee: Recipes from Two Centuries of African American Cooking" by Toni Tipton-Martin. The Black diaspora has brought many ingredients and diverse culinary skills to our modern plates. And they talk about Glenn Roberts, the founder of Anson Mills. Biscuits, waffles, Carolina Gold Rice, Thirteen Colonies flours, okra and deep fat frying.
词汇提示1.conqueror 征服者2.reluctant 不愿意3.penal 刑罚4.temporary 临时的5.theft 偷盗6.category 类别7.exile 流放8.sentence 宣判9.convicts 囚犯10.fleet 舰队11.chained 被锁12.aggravated 严重的原文Australian OriginsIn many countries, leading families proudly trace their ancestors back to some significant group of people.In the U..S.A., prominent families may boast that their family came over on the Mayflower in 1620In England, ladies and gentlemen are happy to announce that their ancestors came to Britain with William the Conqueror in 1066.In Australia, however, many leading families are reluctant to talk about their origins.In fact, many years ago, one Australian city burned its early records, so that no one would know who their ancestors were.The reason for that is that Australia began its history as a British penal colony.In eighteenth century England, there was a large gap between the rich and the poor.To make matters worse, many farmers had been forced off their land by powerful landownersThese homeless people wandered to the cities where employment was often hard to find.Frequent wars gave temporary employment to young men as soldiers and sailors,but when the war was over, they were no better off than before.As a result, theft was extremely common.To protect themselves, the upper classes made theft punishable by hanging.The problem with this was that juries were often reluctant to hang someone for stealing something small,and might declare the person "not guilty."For example, if a man or woman stole a loaf of bread to feed their children, the jury might just let them go.To prevent this, the courts came up with a new category of punishment - exile or "transportation"If the judge or jury was reluctant to sentence the accused to death,they would ship them far away from England across the seas.However, if the person was found back in England again, he or she would be hangedAt first, England sent its convicts to America's Thirteen Colonies.However, when the United States declared its independence in 1776, this was no longer possible.England considered sending criminals to West Africa, but the land and climate were considered unsuitable.So finally Great Britain decided to use the huge, almost uninhabited, country of Australia.At this time, not a single European was living anywhere on the continent.In the fall of 1786, a fleet of English ships began to take convicts on board.This process continued till the sailing date of May 13, 1787.Many British jails had been cleared of both male and female prisoners.Since the convicts were technically under a sentence of death,there was little concern for making them comfortable.At first, the convicts were chained below decks but later some were released when well out to seaOne man had been sentenced for the theft of a winter coat;another for stealing cucumbers from a garden; a third for carrying off a sheep.Among the women, one was guilty of stealing a large cheese; another of taking several yards of cloth.These ships known as "The First Fleet" carried1,442 convicts, sailors, marines and officers.The fleet finally arrived at Botany Bay on January 10, 1788.Later that month, they moved down to Sydney Harbour.No preparations whatsoever had been made.The forests came right up to the shore.Soon, the fleet members were cutting down trees and trying to put up tents.It was June 1790 before further supplies arrived from England.Meanwhile, many convicts suffered from sickness, aggravated by lack of good food.In conclusion, Australians need not be ashamed of their origins.In time, great things were achieved, in spite of the almost complete lack of help from the English government.Many ex-convicts became respectable settlers who began prosperous farms and businesses.The members of the First Fleet, whether convicts or not, deserve to be honored as the founders of Australia.翻译澳大利亚的起源在许多国家，精英家庭自豪地将祖先追溯到一些重要的群体。在美国美国，显赫的家族可能会吹嘘他们的家族是1620年乘五月花号来的在英国，女士们和先生们很高兴地宣布，他们的祖先于1066年随征服者威廉来到英国。然而，在澳大利亚，许多主要家庭不愿谈论他们的出身。事实上，很多年前，澳大利亚的一座城市烧毁了它的早期记录，以至于没有人知道他们的祖先是谁。其原因是澳大利亚开始其作为英国刑罚殖民地的历史。在十八世纪的英国，贫富差距很大。更糟糕的是，许多农民被强大的地主逼离了土地这些无家可归的人流落到城市，那里往往很难找到工作。频繁的战争给年轻人提供了士兵和水手的临时工作，但战争结束后，他们的境况并不比以前好。因此，盗窃非常普遍。为了保护自己，上层阶级将盗窃行为处以绞刑。问题是陪审团通常不愿意因为偷了小东西而绞死某人，并可能宣布此人“无罪”。例如，如果一个男人或女人偷了一块面包来喂他们的孩子，陪审团可能会让他们走。为了防止这种情况，法院提出了一种新的惩罚类别——流放或“运输”如果法官或陪审团不愿判处被告死刑，他们会将他们从英国远渡重洋。然而，如果此人再次在英国被发现，他或她将被处以绞刑起初，英国将囚犯送往美国的十三个殖民地。然而，当美国于1776年宣布独立时，这已经不可能了。英国曾考虑将罪犯送往西非，但认为那里的土地和气候不适宜。因此，英国最终决定使用澳大利亚这个几乎无人居住的巨大国家。此时，欧洲大陆上没有一个欧洲人住在任何地方。1786年秋天，一支英国舰队开始将罪犯带上船。这一过程一直持续到1787年5月13日的开航日期。许多英国监狱已清除了男女囚犯。由于从技术上讲，这些罪犯被判处死刑，因此人们很少担心让他们感到舒适。起初，囚犯们被锁在甲板下，但后来一些人在出海时被释放一名男子因盗窃冬衣被判刑；另一项罪名是从花园里偷黄瓜；第三个只带走一只羊。在这些妇女中，有一人偷了一大块奶酪；另一种是拿几码布。这些被称为“第一舰队”的船只载有1442名囚犯、水手、海军陆战队和军官。舰队最终于1788年1月10日抵达植物学湾。当月晚些时候，他们搬到了悉尼港。没有做任何准备。森林一直延伸到岸边。很快，舰队成员开始砍伐树木并试图搭建帐篷。1790年6月，更多的补给才从英国抵达。与此同时，许多囚犯因缺乏好食物而患病。总之，澳大利亚人不必为自己的出身感到羞愧。尽管英国政府几乎完全没有帮助，但最终还是取得了巨大成就。许多前科犯都成为了值得尊敬的定居者，开始了繁荣的农场和商业。第一舰队的成员，无论是不是罪犯，都应该被尊为澳大利亚的缔造者。
In this episode we will take a very brief look into the lives of British Empire Loyalists after they moved to what remained of British North America after the Thirteen Colonies won the American Revolutionary War. What prompted Loyalists to leave the Thirteen Colonies? What issues did they face in what is modern Canada? How did the British government respond? Please note: at about 13:13 I said "hypothetical." It should be "hypocritical."
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The story of the Thirteen Colonies' struggle for independence from Britain is well known to every American schoolchild. But at the start of the Revolutionary War, there were more than thirteen British colonies in North America. Patriots were surrounded by Indigenous homelands and loyal provinces. Independence had its limits. North of America: Loyalists, Indigenous Nations, and the Borders of the Long American Revolution (Yale University Press, 2022) by Dr. Jeffers Lennox focuses on Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and especially the homelands that straddled colonial borders. He argues that these areas were far less foreign to the men and women who established the United States than Canada is to those who live here now. These northern neighbors were far from inactive during the Revolution. The participation of the loyal British provinces and Indigenous nations that largely rejected the Revolution—as antagonists, opponents, or bystanders—shaped the progress of the conflict and influenced the American nation's early development. In this book, historian Dr. Lennox looks north, as so many Americans at that time did, and describes how Loyalists and Indigenous leaders frustrated Patriot ambitions, defended their territory, and acted as midwives to the birth of the United States while restricting and redirecting its continental aspirations. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies
Americans learn of the founding of Jamestown as part of their country's history, as the first successful English colony in the New World and the precursor to the Thirteen Colonies that would eventually rebel against the British. It can also be looked at as the start of the British Empire, and as embodying a spirit of exploration in the aftermath of the victory over Spain. All of which make it an appropriate instance of a First Turning landmark.
Civil procedure in the United States consists of rules that govern civil actions in the federal, state, and territorial court systems, and is distinct from the rules that govern criminal actions. Like much of American law, civil procedure is not reserved to the federal government in its Constitution. As a result, each state is free to operate its own system of civil procedure independent of her sister states and the federal court system. History. Early federal and state civil procedure in the United States was rather ad hoc and was based on traditional common law procedure but with much local variety. There were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as "actions" at law or "suits" in equity or in admiralty; these differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law. Even worse, discovery was generally unavailable in actions at law. In order to obtain discovery, a party to a legal action had to bring a collateral proceeding, a bill in equity in aid of discovery, just to obtain essential documents or testimony from the opposing party. Procedure in the early federal courts was rather incoherent. The Process Act of 1792 authorized the federal courts to write their own procedural rules for everything but actions at law. In the context of actions at law, the earlier Process Act of 1789 was so poorly written that it forced a federal court sitting in a state to apply the common law rules of pleading and procedure that were in effect in the state at the time it joined the Union, regardless of whether the state had modified or revised its civil procedure system since. In other words, even though a state's common law pleading system was always constantly evolving through case law, the federal courts in that state were literally frozen in time (a concept now known as "static conformity"). The Process Acts of 1789 and 1792 did not expressly address the problem of what procedural laws to apply in the federal courts in new states that joined the Union after the original Thirteen Colonies. In 1828, Congress enacted a law which stated that such courts would follow the civil procedure in effect at the time those states joined the Union. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support
One more trip to the Thirteen Colonies, this time with Pennsylvania Trivia. How well do you know the state, its history, and its place in popular culture? Well, we've got thirty challenging questions that will test your trivia skills for this week's episode of Dorky Geeky Nerdy. Send us a review on any of these sites: Apple Podcasts Spotify Podchaser Audible --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/dorkygeekynerdy/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dorkygeekynerdy/support
One more trip to the Thirteen Colonies, this time with Pennsylvania Trivia. How well do you know the state, its history, and its place in popular culture. Well, we've got thirty challenging questions that will test your trivia skills for this week's episode of Dorky Geeky Nerdy.
One more trip to the Thirteen Colonies, this time with Pennsylvania Trivia. How well do you know the state, its history, and its place in popular culture? Well, we've got thirty challenging questions that will test your trivia skills for this week's episode of Dorky Geeky Nerdy. Send us a review on any of these sites: Apple Podcasts Spotify Podchaser Audible --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/dorkygeekynerdy/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dorkygeekynerdy/support
Common Sense was a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76 advocating independence from Great Britain to people in the Thirteen Colonies. Writing in clear and persuasive prose, Paine marshaled moral and political arguments to encourage common people in the Colonies to fight for egalitarian government. It was published anonymously on January 10, 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution, and became an immediate sensation.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
Is the reported history of the Commander-in-Chief of the Thirteen Colonies the truth? Was he killed on the battlefield or was it something different? Here's a closer look at the events that turned the tides of the French & Indian War.
Welcome back to the TCFC podcast. In the United States, dating back to the Thirteen Colonies, approximately 364 juveniles have been executed by individual colonies, states, or the federal government, for crimes they were found guilty of committing. 22 individuals were executed between 1976 and 2005, for crimes committed when they were juveniles. In 1976, […]
Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve. One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve. One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Kevin provides an update on the status of his book and offers a preview of one of the book's chapters: St. Mary's City, Maryland, the cradle of Catholicism in the Thirteen Colonies. (“Cradles of Catholicism” series, no. 1, Maryland)
"No taxation without representation!" Historic Gibberish, with its sleepy host, talks about American Revolution. Why did the people in the Thirteen Colonies decide the independence? What was the turning point of the revolution? Come and listen what Hannah Arendt said about the revolution, and the fun philosophical trivia of American Revolution.
With the Fourth of July right around the corner, Nathanael and Elijah take a moment to celebrate America's independence by looking back at our country's history of freedom and overwhelming success. From the first settling of North America to the establishment of the Thirteen Colonies to the Civil War, the World Wars, and the informal war for civil rights, the United States' legacy of greatness is one that cannot be ignored or underestimated. This distinctive fourteenth installment of We The Patriots not only honors the tradition of American history (with all its warts and wrinkles), but observes how this country's heritage of opportunity and self-sustainment have made this nation one worth being proud of.Bring on the fireworks. NOTE: The World War II Pacific arena casualty statistics listed by Nathanael were prospective estimates of the time, not historically documented figures. Follow us on Instagram at wethe_patriots.Email us at wethepatriots2020@gmail.com.Find our podcast on Spotify, Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, and Google Podcasts.
In this episode of 365 days with mxmtoon, Maia talks about the day the Thirteen Colonies declared independence from the British monarchy, establishing the United States of America (and a great three-day summer weekend). After, she reflects on the premiere of the movie Mamma Mia in Sweden. Listen to this episode today and make sure you're following along with the daily updates @365daysmxmtoon on all platforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode, Matt talks to Adam Harris, Senior Brand Ambassador for the James B Beam Distilling co. The story of the Beam family is one of seven generations, more than 200 years, countless challenges and one goal; to make the best bourbon in the world. So settle in, pour yourself a bourbon and prepare to travel back in time with the First Family of Bourbon. In 1740, when the United States was still the Thirteen Colonies, the Boehm family first arrived in America, determined to live the colonial dream. Forty-eight years later, they'd relocated to where central Kentucky currently is and Americanized their German name to “Beam.” The hot summers, mild winters and nearby limestone spring made their new home ideal for … you guessed it … growing corn. Not what you were thinking? Don't worry, the bourbon part is coming soon. By the late 1700s, German, Scotch and Irish settlers were already making rye whiskey in Western Pennsylvania with recipes they brought over from their homelands. But when the U.S. government began offering incentives to move west and grow corn, many packed up their families and relocated to the Kentucky region of Virginia(strange times, we know). Among these farmers was Jacob Beam who, like others, used his father's whiskey recipe to distill his excess corn into a new, sweeter kind of whiskey-bourbon was born. Perhaps the best decision Jacob Beam ever made was to sell his bourbon. He sold his first barrel of Old Jake Beam Sour Mash in 1795, just three years after Kentucky became a state. His bourbon quickly became a local favourite-no small accomplishment considering that, by the early 1800s, Kentucky was home to about 2,000 distillers. If you want to try any of the spirits Matt discussed on the show you can ORDER ONLINE or from the BIG RED LIQUORS APP for Curbside Pickup Service. It's as easy as 1,2,3! Start Your Order - bigredliquors.com Simply select your store, browse and search for Jim Beam products, and start a CURBSIDE order. Your store will notify you when it is ready for pickup. Best of all, our NO TOUCH curbside will leave you with peace of mind and the great products you want ASAP.
The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In the United States, which has an English common law tradition, the concept of a right to keep and bear arms was recognized prior to the creation of a written national constitution. When colonists in the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against British control during the American Revolution they cited the 1689 English Bill of Rights as an example. English precedent. The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defense by Protestant English subjects. The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defense as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch. Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support
Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve. One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted, and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint, or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty. The terms freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom to join an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association. In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly, the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support
In the second part of our series on the Battle of the Alamo, we look at some of the plants and peoples of New Spain. Colonization brought both the cultures and species of the Old World crashing into the New, with many surprising consequences. In this episode we examine the role of African slavery in the development New Spain, and how it differed from their neighbors in the Thirteen Colonies. Also; how did the subtleties of European religious warfare influence the development of North America? And; why the hell was the Mission of San Antonio called "the Alamo Mission"? For that matter; what kind of church requires artillery and basic fortifications? Find out here!
A reading from the beginning of the United States Declaration of Independence in ASMR (Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response). The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America) is the pronouncement adopted by the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 4, 1776. The Declaration explained why the Thirteen Colonies at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain regarded themselves as thirteen independent sovereign states, no longer under British rule. With the Declaration, these new states took a collective first step toward forming the United States of America. - Wikipedia --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Revolutionary War in the Thirteen Colonies and This is the story of some Brits declaring to rebel against the British to join in America's side of the War. Credits: All Characters is voiced by Elric Atchison Voice Directed by Elric Atchison The Episode is executively produced by: Elric Atchison and Katie Zeisl Script Written by: Elric Atchison Created at Bronze Pinnacle Studios's Bronze Pinnacle Audio! Elric's Social Media Links: Elric's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ElricTAtchison Elric's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/elrictatchison/ Elric's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Elreezy Elric's Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/ElricTimothyAtchison Bronze Pinnacle Discord: https://discord.gg/SXqKApB --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/elreezyaudioplays/message
The Stamp Act levied a direct tax on American colonists without ...
Revolution and freedom hold different meanings to different people, and the history of the colonial world is no exception. This episode of American Capital explores the impact of the Transatlantic Slave Trade through data: how large it truly was, and what it looked like to those involved first-hand. Along the way, we tie together the Haitian Revolution—arguably the only successful revolt of enslaved people in the New World—and the American Revolution. Ultimately asking: was there an "Age of Revolutions" occurring around the world, and were all of these fought under a common definition of "freedom?" — EPISODE MENTIONS Who: Aaron Lopez, Charles Leclerc, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, John Hancock, Joseph Miller, Napolean Bonaparte, Robert Paul Thomas, Thomas Jefferson, Toussaint Louverture What: American Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, Dunmore's Proclamation, Haitian Declaration of Independence, Haitian Revolution, Louisiana Purchase, Navigation Acts, Stamp Act (1765), Slave Ship Brookes, Slave Ship Creole, Slave Ship Sally, Slave Ship Zong, Transatlantic Slave Trade Where: British West Indies, Colonial Brazil, Haiti (Saint-Domingue), Indian Ocean, Middle Passage, The Thirteen Colonies, West Africa Documents: "A Quantitative Approach to the Study of the Effects of British Imperial Policy Upon Colonial Welfare", SlaveVoyages.org, Voyage of the Slave Ship Sally --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/american-capital/support
Disciple Up #155 Show Notes Will Covid-19 Bring About a Great Awakening By Louie Marsh, 4-13-2020 Articles Quoted From: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/april/will-covid-19-lead-to-next-great-american-awakening.html https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/april/coronavirus-searches-online-converts-pray-cru-bgea-wmo.html Greg Laurie's Website: https://harvest.org/ Global Outreach Day Website: https://www.go2020.world/ Pray. Pray for 5 people. Pray for healing for those affected by the Coronavirus. Care. Care for the practical needs of those affected by the Coronavirus. Help out with babysitting, provide meals, go grocery shopping for the elderly or check on your friends and family. Share. Share the hope you have in Christ. Post a video of your testimony with #go2020 #hopebeyondfear. Text your testimony or share it over WhatsApp, IG, SnapChat, Tik Tok or Facebook. The Great Awakenings The First Great Awakening (sometimes Great Awakening) or the Evangelical Revival was a series of Christian revivals that swept Britain and its Thirteen Colonies between the 1730s and 1740s. The revival movement permanently affected Protestantism as adherents strove to renew individual piety and religious devotion. The Great Awakening marked the emergence of Anglo-American evangelicalism as a trans-denominational movement within the Protestant churches. In the United States, the term Great Awakening is most often used, while in the United Kingdom, it is referred to as the Evangelical Revival. In the 1790s, another religious revival, which became known as the Second Great Awakening, began in New England. This movement is typically regarded as less emotionally charged than the First Great Awakening. It led to the founding of several colleges, seminaries and mission societies. A Third Great Awakening was said to span from the late 1850s to the early 20th century. Some scholars, however, disagree that this movement was ever a significant event. My Answer – No.
"Catholicism in Colonial America" with Father Charles Connor - 1795 Lecture Series Father Connor is a faculty member at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. An expert in Church history, he is the author of Pioneer Priests and Makeshift Altars: A History of Catholicism in the Thirteen Colonies. He has hosted several television programs on EWTN, including Catholic Beginnings, a series that explores the rich Catholic heritage in America and its influence on the nation. This lecture was recorded on February 18, 2020. The "1795 Lecture Series" is one of the ways the Basilica of Saint Mary is commemorating our 225th anniversary. Founded in 1795, the Basilica of Saint Mary in Old Town Alexandria is the first Catholic parish established in Virginia. Pope Francis named the church a minor basilica on December 6, 2017 due to its important role in the growth of the Catholic Church in North America.
Episode 296 It’s 17-whatever and the Thirteen Colonies are having a witter about the tea tax or some such thing and are getting in a right strop about it. Luckily one of the American Generals has swapped sides and is now holed up in Fort Summoner, with his wooden leg and a lot of British […]
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheet --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support
What is his favorite part of history? In this podcast: Fr. Charles Connor returns to break down US History specifically the Rise of Catholicism During the Civil War, including what led up to it and the issue of slavery https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/faith-and-fury Buy on Amazon: https://amzn.to/323HQSv Episode 376 - Pioneer Priests and Makeshift Altars: A History of Catholicism in the Thirteen Colonies https://www.kyleheimann.com/show376 Check this out on YouTube Hear more interviews on Youtube: kyleheimann.com/youtube Subscribe to the (highlights) Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Android Podcast | Other Android Apps | Stitcher | RSS | Spotify Podcast: www.kyleheimann.com Live: www.redeemerradio.com Email: show@redeemerradio.com follow us on social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube @KyleHeimannShow Call/Text: Holy Cross College Textline: 260-436-9598 Theme Song: -Custom music written by Shawn Williams (www.musicbyshawnwilliams.com) for The Kyle Heimann Show -Licensed via The Sound Cabin Inc. (www.thesoundcabin.com)
http://JoshPeckDisclosure.com PLEASE SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE! Were The THIRTEEN COLONIES PLANNED & HOW Are They Tied BACK to EGYPT?! JUSTEN & WES FAULL Join Josh Peck in Dallas in March of 2019 for the Hear the Watchmen conference! Use promo code Josh20 to get 20 dollars off the price of your tickets. Order now at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hear-the-watchmen-sounding-the-alarm-dallas-2019-tickets-51840018892 because it is going to sell out fast! Order The Second Coming of the New Age Official Collection at: https://www.skywatchtvstore.com/products/second-coming-of-the-new-age-official-collection Your support is essential to JoshPeckDisclosure, which is funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one-time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://joshpeckdisclosure.com/donate or for as little as $1 a month, become a Peck Patron at http://patreon.com/joshpeck and let's build something amazing and change this crazy world together! If you enjoyed this free video, please consider donating to help us bring you more free content at http://joshpeckdisclosure.com/donate or, if you can't donate financially, please consider donating a few moments of your time by sharing this video, rating, and leaving a comment in the comment section below. Thank you, take care, and YHWH bless! More Josh Peck: Patreon: http://patreon.com/joshpeck Website: http://JoshPeckDisclosure.com Steemit Blog: http://steemit.com/@joshpeck Christina Peck: http://ChristinaPeck.com Email - JoshPeckDisclosure@Gmail.com Facebook - http://facebook.com/josh.peck.5264 JoshPeckDisclosure - http://youtube.com/JoshPeckDisclosure Twitter - @JPDisclosure
British control of the Thirteen Colonies of North America formally ended in 1783. Evacuation Day on 25 November 1783 marked the departure of British forces from New York, following the Declaration of Independence in 1776. However, the American Revolutionary War started in 1775, with the ‘shot that rang around the world’ on Lexington Green, when a contingent of British Redcoats exchanged fire with the colonial militia outisde of Boston. The hostilities quickly escalted and all out war followed. Bunker Hill, Long Island, Brandywine, Saratoga, Charleston, Yorktown are just some of the key battles in the American Revolutionary War. But how and why did the British - the superpower of the day - lose the war? In this episode, Patrick (@historychappy) explains three key reasons for the defeat that everyone should be aware of, while Elliott (@thelibrarian6) asks the questions. For terms of use, please visit www.versushistory.com
Part Two! Australia's history as an outpost of the British Empire formally began in 1788 with the arrival at Botany Bay of the First Fleet. Australia was initially a British penal colony. With the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in North America, Britain needed a new location to transport its convicts. Australia was to be that place. Australia and her white settler population developed politically, economically and socially under the stewardship of a number of Governors in the late 18th and 19th centuries, some 9500 miles away from the metropole. Within 50 years of British colonisation, Austrailia had experienced many, many seismic changes. The Aboriginal population, undoubtedly, suffered greatly and deeply. Sheep were introduced to help move the colony towards self-sufficiency. Transportation to Australia eventually ceased, with 'free settlers' taking the place of criminals. In the second of two special episodes, Australian academic and Curriculum Manager Dr Dave Brown (@DBrownF6History) shares his expertise and research into Australian colonial history, answering a wide array of questions about the period. For terms of use, please visit www.versushistory.com
Australia's history as an outpost of the British Empire formally began in 1788 with the arrival at Botany Bay of the First Fleet. Australia was initially a British penal colony. With the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in North America, Britain needed a new location to transport its convicts. Australia was to be that place. Australia and her white settler population developed politically, economically and socially under the stewardship of a number of Governors in the late 18th and 19th centuries, some 9500 miles away from the metropole. Within 50 years of British colonisation, Austrailia had experienced many, many seismic changes. The Aboriginal population, undoubtedly, suffered greatly and deeply. Sheep were introduced to help move the colony towards self-sufficiency. Transportation to Australia eventually ceased, with 'free settlers' taking the place of criminals. In the first of two special episodes, Australian academic and Curriculum Manager Dr Dave Brown (@DBrownF6History) shares his expertise and research into Australian colonial history, answering a wide array of questions about the period. For terms of use, please visit www.versushistory.com
A special minisode that was created for International Podcast Month and was originally released on the I Am Hear podcast feed. This special episode goes back to my first podcast, the Thirteen Colonies by Zeppelin, fr a number of reasons I was unable to release this episode after it was recorded and have had to wait for many years to finally get permission.Theme music is as always provided by the talented Chip Michael, for more of Chip's music go to www.soundcloud.com/chipmichael.
This week we look at issues with the phrase 'Thirteen Colonies', and explore North America in the mid-eighteenth century.
The Dominicans have just celebrated the 150-year jubilee of their ministry on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Fr. John Maria Devaney, O.P., host of the Order's Word to Life program on Sirius XM, takes me through the history of the Dominicans in NYC (which involves quite a bit of history of the city itself). From Rose Hawthorne to Andy Warhol, it is a fascinating and grace-filled legacy. Links Word to Life, Fr. John's Sirius XM radio show https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/word-to-life/id1416667926 Dominican Friars Province of St. Joseph https://opeast.org/category/word-to-life/ The St. John Paul II Society https://www.stjohnpaul.org/ The Angelic Warfare Confraternity http://www.angelicwarfareconfraternity.org/ Book mentioned by Fr. John, Pioneer Priests and Makeshift Altars: A History of Catholicism in the Thirteen Colonies by Fr. Charles Connor https://amzn.to/2Mk6Iyo Timestamps 2:17 Father John's background and call to the priesthood 4:34 Parish missions: the beginnings of Dominican ministry in Manhattan in 1867; Catholic demographics in New York at the time 14:57 The second church of St. Vincent Ferrer that was built after the arrival of more Irish immigrants; Dominican Sisters of St. Mary of the Springs start a school 17:20 The English sisters who served poor immigrants and started the Dominican Sisters of Sparkill 21:07 Aside on Bishop John Hughes, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, and Dominican friars out West 26:38 The first two bishops of New York were Dominican 28:47 The gilded age of New York: opening the Priory of St. Vincent Ferrer and the Mission Church of St. Catherine of Siena 35:07 The story of Rose Hawthorne and her founding of a community of Dominican sisters to care for poor cancer sufferers (the “Hawthorne Dominicans”) 41:54 Rose's cause for canonization and its importance in combatting assisted suicide; her connection to Sloan-Kettering and Dominican hospital work in NYC more generally 47:48 The vital role of Dominican nuns and sisters 49:44 The current St. Vincent Ferrer church built in Gothic style by the great architect Bertram Goodhue 52:02 The stained-glass Aristotle window; his importance to the Dominicans 56:15 Developments in the neighborhood since the 1950s 57:39 Andy Warhol's attendance of St. Vincent Ferrer 1:01:28 Catholicism in the public sphere and art circles in the mid-20th century 1:03:42 The Dominican mission of influencing NYC as a cultural hub today; the Dominican contribution to Catholicism in the US is devotional life 1:09:55 The Our Lady of Fatima statue at St. Vincent Ferrer which was sculpted by Fr. McGlynn under the direction of Sister Lucia, the piece of St. John Paul II's bloodstained cassock from when he was shot 1:14:48 The importance of the rosary to Dominicans and all Catholics 1:18:56 How Fr. Matthew Carroll got the sisters to wear their habits again 1:27:36 This week's excerpt: Pope St. John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope
The Thirteen Colonies of British North America declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776, by signing the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson. The first shots of the war had already been fired at Lexington and Concord in 1775; war continued until 1783 and the Treaty of Paris, where Britain acknowledged that America was no longer part of the British Empire. What caused this rupture between Britain and America? In this episode, Patrick (@historychappy) discusses the role played by the settlers themselves and enlightenment thinking in the 18th century, while Elliott (@thelibrarian6) discusses the role played by British legislation, the Patriots and the end of 'Salutary Neglect' in 1763. Contributor Conal (@prohistoricman) suggests that tea and taxation also had a significant part to play. After all, everyone has heard of the Boston Tea Party! For terms of use, please visit www.versushistory.com
Ken talks with Dr. Brian Engelland “Force for Good: The Catholic Guide to Business Integrity” and Father Charles Connor “Pioneer Priests and Makeshift Altars: A History of Catholicism in the Thirteen Colonies” (both books published by EWTN Publishing/Sophia Institute Press) Dr. Engelland’s book is available at: https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/force-for-good and Father Connor’s book: https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/pioneer-priests-and-makeshift-altars
The Founding Fathers of the United States are those individuals of the Thirteen Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown in word and deed and contributed to the establishment of the United States of America. The term Founding Fathers is sometimes used to refer to the Signers of the embossed version of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It is not to be confused with the term Framers; the Framers are defined by the National Archives as those 55 individuals who were appointed to be delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and took Of the 55 Framers, only 39 were signers of the Constitution. Two further groupings of Founding Founders include: 1) those who signed the Continental Association, a trade ban and one of the colonists' first collective volleys protesting British control and the Intolerable Acts in 1774 or 2) those who signed the Articles of Confederation, the first U.S. constitutional document. The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a twentieth century appellation, first coined by Warren G. Harding in 1916. In the 19th century, they were referred to as simply, the "Fathers". Some historians have begun to eschew the limiting Great Man theory associated with the term "Founding Fathers" and apply it to a broader group of people, that includes not only Morris' "Seven" or the Signers or the Framers but also all those, no matter their race or gender, who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning U.S. independence and creating the United States of America.
One of the original Thirteen Colonies, South Carolina had signed the Declaration of Independence and was the 8th State to ratify the Constitution on May 23rd, 1788. Mississippi had been a state for now over 40 years. It was reaching the point where only the older generation remembered when it was an open territory against the vast western frontier. Though not as young as Oregon or Minnesota or California, Florida, on the other hand, had only been a state for 15 years, only just over half a year older than Texas. It was entirely possible that there had been many in the state who remembered what it was like before the Florida Purchase Treaty ceded the Spanish territory to the US in 1822, combining East and West Florida into the Florida Territory. Yet on January 10th, 1861, Florida would become the third state to secede from the Union. Once declared a “Free and Independent State” in its Constitution, it was now ready to declare itself an “Sovereign and Independent Nation” in an open convention that agreed by a vote of sixty-two to seven to leave the “the Confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America”. Even before Florida seceded, Governor Madison Perry foresaw the possibility of withdrawal as a potential option, and even perhaps an inevitable necessity. A small state in terms of population, the economy was reliant on slavery as a cheap source of labor to ensure its prosperity. Though the issue of slavery, or, as the Mississippi Ordinance of Secession passed the day prior referred to it, property never arose in the third state’s own declaration, it had to be a prevalent thought in the minds of all voting Floridians. Of the just over 140,000 people who lived in the state, almost 62,000 of them were slaves. If the system were to be challenged, or changed then the economy would collapse. Three wars with the Seminoles Indians had already been fought, at least in part, because they provided sanctuary and safety to runaway slaves. Perry encouraged the state to reinstate the militia even as it was being dissolved in 1858. Yet, prone to drunkenness, claiming to be on patrol when they were at home working their fields, the militia had lost the trust of the people. Still, Perry was right, and following the vote for secession, he demanded the complete evacuation of all Federal Government Troops from Florida soil. When the Confederacy would be formed Florida would be one of the Original 6 founding states. Texas would be admitted before fighting would break out in the South, while the remaining 4 states would join after. Far to the South, it would not see much fighting nor many battles before the end of the War, and Tallahassee would be the only Southern Capital that had not been captured by the Union Army before the end of the War. Yet, even as the dreams of the Confederacy died, Governor John Milton, the successor to Governor Perry, would declare he would rather die than live under the flag of the Union and what he would call the odious character of the Yankee. With the end of the war just over a month away, and the weight of everything bearing down on him he would shoot himself in the head. Regardless, the nation was lining up and the lines were being drawn as the nation prepared to answer, with force, the question they struggled and failed to answer with their pens over the course of the past 84 years. War was coming and it would be the bloodiest ever faced by America as brother quickly turned against brother in the great conflict.
Illustrates the formation of the National Army and Navy of the US at the time of the American Revolution. The Continental Army was formed by the Second Continental Congress after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War by the colonies that became the United States of America. Established by a resolution of the Congress on June 14, 1775, it was created to coordinate the military efforts of the Thirteen Colonies in their revolt against the rule of Great Britain. The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and troops that remained under control of the individual states or were otherwise independent. General George Washington was the commander-in-chief of the army throughout the war. Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went on to form the nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792 under General Anthony Wayne. This became the foundation of the United States Army in 1796. The Continental Navy was the navy of the United States during the American Revolutionary War, and was formed in 1775. The fleet cumulatively became relatively substantial through the efforts of the Continental Navy's patron John Adams and vigorous Congressional support in the face of stiff opposition, when considering the limitations imposed upon the Patriot supply pool. The main goal of the navy was to intercept shipments of British matériel and generally disrupt British maritime commercial operations. The initial fleet consisted of converted merchantmen because of the lack of funding, manpower, and resources, with exclusively designed warships being built later in the conflict. The vessels that successfully made it to sea met with success only rarely, and the effort contributed little to the overall outcome of the war. The fleet did serve to highlight a few examples of Continental resolve, notably launching Captain John Barry into the limelight. It provided needed experience for a generation of officers who went on to command conflicts which involved the early American navy. With the war over and the Federal government in need of all available capital, the final vessel of the Continental Navy was auctioned off in 1785 to a private bidder. The Continental Navy is the first establishment of what is now the United States Navy. source link https://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava04979vnb1 copyright link https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ information link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Army information link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Navy
What follows is an edited transcript of my interview with Alex Salter about the economics of space. The first half deals primarily with the issue of space debris, while the second half deals with the possibility of private governance in space. There's something in this episode for everyone to enjoy, so I hope you'll listen, read, and share it with your friends. Petersen: My guest today is Alex Salter of Texas Tech University. Alex, welcome to Economics Detective Radio. Salter: Thanks very much for having me. Petersen: Our topic today is the economics of space. Alex has written two papers on the subject. The first is entitled, "Space Debris: A Law and Economics Analysis of the Orbital Commons." The second is, "Ordering the Cosmos: Private Law and Celestial Property Rights." So Alex, let's start by talking about space debris. What is it and why does it matter? Salter: So space debris is basically junk in space that no longer serves any useful purpose. So as you can imagine, since the first piece of space debris launched up in 1957---which was the rocket body from Sputnik I---a lot of orbits around the Earth, especially low Earth orbit, have become kind of cluttered with space junk. And the reason it gets cluttered is because no one has an incentive to clean it up. It's a problem because a lot of this stuff is big enough and moving fast enough that if it strikes something like a communications satellite, it can take it out. So the probability of a collision right now that will cause serious damage is currently low, but there are a lot of worries among scientists who study the problem that as debris occasionally collides with more debris, you get a sort of snowballing effect of the clutter. So if we're going to get a handle on it, it needs to be earlier rather than later. Petersen: I think intuitively it seems like the sky is so big and satellites are so small that we'd never have to worry about collisions. So why is that not the case? Salter: So there's obviously quite a bit of room up there, but the problem is that some orbits are more valuable than others. In particular, geosynchronous orbit, which is I think 36 thousand kilometers above the Earth, is a really valuable place for specific satellites. And also low Earth orbit is a valuable place for specific satellites. Now, there's still a lot of room there, but it's significantly restricted. If my communications satellite is taking up a particular orbit, your satellite can't be in the same place. So there's only so much of it to go around, and again, what we're really worried about is debris colliding with something, which creates more debris, which can collide with more stuff. We're really worried that snowball effect, which is sometimes called the Kessler syndrome after the scientist who first wrote about it. Petersen: So the odds of a single collision might be low, but given one collision, it becomes much more likely that we'll have two and three and four---a chain reaction of collisions. Salter: Exactly. So right now the probability of collision is pretty low over the life of a satellite, for example in low Earth orbit, it's no more than one in a thousand. But conditional on getting hit, that can cause a pretty serious business disruption and economic losses, and as you said, given that one increases the likelihood of all future collisions, it's kind of like a positive feedback loop. So that can get pretty nasty pretty quick. Petersen: Have there been any collisions in the past? Salter: There have been many collisions in the past. I think the most notable one was actually intentional. In 2007, China performed an anti-satellite test, where it purposefully took out one of its old satellites that was no longer useful. And it created, I think, about a hundred and fifty thousand new pieces of space debris with that one anti-satellite test. So I'm not aware of any instances of grave, private sector disruptions caused by space debris collisions, but honestly unless there's some means of cleaning this stuff up or it de-orbits on its own, it really is only a matter of time. Petersen: So, you make a distinction in the paper between access to orbit and particular orbits. Can you explain what those are? Salter: Right. So access to orbit is basically getting your payload up into space. If you have a communications satellite, it's getting it to the orbit you want. And economically that has the characteristics of a public good. The standard definition of a public good in economics is anything that we like which is not rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable. So if I consume one more unit of it, that doesn't stop you from consuming more. And also non-excludable, the second part, means it's costly or very difficult for me to stop other people from enjoying that. So both of those characteristics fit getting a satellite into your desired orbit---going through space to get to where you want to go. Once your satellite is in position though, a particular orbit has the properties of what we call a common-pool resource. It's rivalrous---if I have it you can't also have it---but it's also non-excludable. I can't really stop you from using it. As orthodox public finance theory will tell you, sometimes the provision of those goods, public goods and common-pool resources, are difficult because if they're non-excludable you can't stop people from enjoying the benefits and so that limits the incentive for producers to make the stuff in the first place. Petersen: Right, so in order to prevent someone from launching a satellite into your orbit, you'd have to somehow police every potential launch site on the globe, which of course we can't do. And that's what makes it [non-excludable]. Salter: It's incredibly expensive and therefore not really feasible. Petersen: Right, so from reading your paper I know other researchers have looked at this problem and they suggested taxing people who create space debris. So do you want to comment on that suggestion, and maybe what are the pros and cons of taking that approach? Salter: Sure. Let me first start by saying that the case for a corrective tax here stems from the fact that we have a common-pool resources problem, or a public goods problem. Nobody owns orbit, and so nobody really has an incentive to worry about how clean it is. If I'm launching a communications satellite, I don't really worry that I'm also imposing a cost on other potential launchers with my useless rocket body. So if everyone thinks that way, then the debris problem becomes unmanageable. So there is a textbook rationale for some correction to what we call this external cost in economics. Because nobody owns orbit or access to orbit, nobody has an incentive to care for it or clean it up. At least not as much as we would like. So the argument for a corrective tax is basically, we want to bring the private costs of polluting space more in line with the social costs of polluting space. So if you tax a polluter, someone who's contributing to space debris, you raise the expensiveness of creating debris. And as economic theory will tell you, when something gets more expensive, all else being equal, people will do less of it. That's the theoretical argument for what's called a Pigouvian or corrective tax. The problem here---and this is not specific to space debris, this is specific to all taxes correcting external cost problems---is that you don't really know how big to make the tax in order to get to the efficient amount of pollution mitigation. And even if you did, you have to take political economy considerations into concern. Corrective taxes are not run and operated by benevolent social planners. They're typically run and operated by bureaucracies, and bureaucrats have their own incentives to which they respond. And the incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats may not be the same as incentives for contributing to social efficiency or maximal wellbeing. Petersen: Right, so we might worry that the body that determines the tax on potentially space-junk-producing private actors might be less concerned with the externality and more concerned with their own revenue and so set the tax not at the social-welfare-maximizing point but at the revenue-maximizing point. Salter: Right, that's one potential worry with that sort of a solution. Again I want to emphasize, though, that's in the abstract. It's still very very difficult---in fact I would even say impossible---to know what the right size of the tax should be. I think that there is an inherent knowledge problem that sometimes gets overlooked at the expense of the incentive problem that you just talked about. Both are very important, and they're related, and they complement each other in terms of the critique, but they are distinct problems. And public policy has to be able to present credible solutions to both of those problems if we're going to argue that a corrective tax would improve social welfare. Petersen: Right, so you launch a satellite, maybe you leave a piece of large debris like a rocket body, but you also create a risk that the satellite will explode or be hit by something and create a snowball effect of more debris. It's really hard to compute the net cost because you not only need to know how likely is it to create more debris and how likely is that debris to impact something. You also need to know the value of the future satellites the debris might impact, which means forecasting the future of space and the future of the economy and all these things into the deep future. Have other researchers at least tried to tackle this problem? Are there some attempts? Salter: There have been some attempts, and as you noted, any estimate is going to be very imprecise because there's a lot of variables moving in the background. But you could look at scientific studies that estimate the damage to useful communications satellite or other valuable space equipment from a collision can range anywhere from 20 to 200 million. That's a reasonable interval for estimating the damages if you count not just the initial collision but also the potential snowballing which can destroy other things. And you can also look at what private companies are doing right now to get an appreciation of the magnitude of the problem. For example, if you're a communications satellite launcher you can buy insurance for your communications satellite. In 2011, market premiums for these kinds of space risks totalled about 800 million dollars. And also in 2011 there were about 600 million in claimed damages. So private actors are spending a lot to insure themselves against risks such as these and that in combination with some of the scientific studies can help build your intuition for understanding that we're talking about a lot of money here: a stream of valuable services into the future which can be risked by space debris. Petersen: So we do have a ballpark estimate, but nothing so precise that we could set an optimal Pigouvian tax even if we had a government that was benevolent enough to try to reach that optimum. So in your paper you suggest alternatives to the Pigouvian route. In particular you suggest potential private solutions. So what private solutions are there to reduce the creation of space debris? Salter: That's a really interesting question because the standard response that economists would give to externality problems seems impractical here. Usually when you have an externality problem, a public goods problem, the solution is to create property rights. Property rights align incentives so if we create property rights to a common pool resource, that will cause people to take better account of the effects of their behaviour on others. But how do you really create a property right to something like an orbit? Is it a specific volume of space? How big is it? Under what conditions can somebody else move through it when your satellite is not in that orbit? I think in this case we have to take seriously the idea that creating property rights to orbit and to access to orbit is simply too costly. It's not feasible given the costs and benefits of the situation. I think the most promising way forward in this particular issue is using market mechanisms to mitigate the problem. So in order to talk about market mechanisms I need to do a little background on international law. There's this treaty, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which basically says among other things that nations retain jurisdiction over the stuff they put in space. Now that's important because if debris is big enough to be tracked, we can tell more or less who made it. So if you have, for example, a piece of Chinese space debris, it's technically contrary to international law for a US organization to go up there and do anything without the Chinese' permission. So if the US wants to do something it has to take care of its own space debris. If the Chinese want to do something, they have to take care of their space debris. Given that constraint, I think one potential is for the US government to auction off contracts to go and mitigate this stuff. Another potential is instead of auctioning off contracts to go remove it, auctioning off a contract to debris itself. One thing that's not often realized about space debris is that a lot of that stuff is valuable metal, material, that's already in orbit. The most costly part of space commerce is actually getting stuff out of Earth's gravity. So if you have debris that's currently up there that can be re-used, perhaps at a later date for in-situ manufacturing and repairs, then that's a valuable asset. Firms should be willing to pay for that. So I think we need to look at market mechanisms within particular nations to address this problem until and unless we can get a more favourable framework in international law. Petersen: So something big like a rocket body has a lot of scrap metal that you don't have to burn fuel to get it there because it's already there. That's really interesting. So it could be a resource in itself. But then there's the issue of much smaller debris, something that isn't a resource in itself. A paint chip or a little fragment of debris that is not useful and is more of just a pure hazard. How would you deal with that? Salter: That's extremely difficult. I'm not sure that there is a good solution to that right now. My guess is there has to be a technological solution in the sense of just developing thicker plating for spacecraft. Because a lot of that stuff is so small that it can't be tracked, but it's still big enough that if it hits you, you're going to be in trouble. I think that the only way to really be safe against something like that is just to wait for material to get more robust. And that's obviously not going to solve the problem but it's going to mitigate it. Petersen: It's too bad. In science fiction they would just say "raise shields" and it would be dealt with, but I guess we can't do that. Salter: That's another imaginative technological innovation and maybe something like that will be feasible some day. There's an actual technological literature on this, of people thinking up contraptions and devices for going out and removing specifically that kind of debris, but none of them are economically feasible and I think most of them aren't even technologically feasible at this point. We just can't even make the stuff apart from economic considerations. Petersen: So there's a future in building technology to deflect or remove tiny bits of debris from Earth orbit. I don't know if you saw the move Wall-E? It was a Pixar film. Salter: Yeah. Petersen: Yeah, humanity had to leave Earth because it was too full of garbage, and there's the scene where not only is Earth covered in garbage but its orbit is full of old satellites. Salter: Right. Petersen: The ship is just sort of pushing its way through comically. But in real life, it could really happen, but it wouldn't be so easy to just push through it. It would be flying so fast and hit you with such force that it would likely cause serious damage unless you could defend against it somehow. Salter: Right, this stuff is moving fast. In low Earth orbit it's going about seven to eight kilometers per second. And there's about 300 thousand pieces of debris that we know about that can destroy a satellite upon impact. So obviously, even if it's small, the fact that it's moving so fast can cause you some serious problems. If we get to the point where we develop strong enough technological---not like energy shielding---but the strength of metal and the strength of materials to push through that, we're a ways off from that. I don't even think that's on the horizon. Petersen: And of course there's the issue that if it makes the satellite heavier, then it becomes much more costly to launch it. So there's the issue of being able to make something strong enough to withstand an impact while light enough to be able to actually launch it in the first place. Salter: Right. As always there are tradeoffs, which is precisely why economics has a valuable perspective to offer on this problem. Petersen: So let's move on to your other paper which deals with property rights in space. It starts with a discussion of the 2015 SPACE Act, signed into law by President Obama. What can you tell me about that act? Salter: So the SPACE Act is largely intended to guarantee that the US government will do something to protect commercial entities' property rights to celestial resources. Celestial property rights, basically. There's no specific commitment to what that protection will look like, it's more a statement of intent to encourage private sector development and exploration of space by the US government saying, "Look, we know this lack of property rights thing is a problem. We just wanted to let you know that in the event of a dispute, we are going to protect your property rights as governments are supposed to do. The problem with that is that we get into some pretty thorny issues with international law. Again, talking about the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was signed by all of the current spacefaring nations, Article II of that treaty states that nation states cannot extend their territorial jurisdiction into outer space. And a lot of legal scholars think if a government is protecting private property rights, it's de facto extended its territorial jurisdiction over those rights. So if deep space industries or planetary resources, asteroid mining companies, eventually go out and claim an asteroid, and Uncle Sam says, "Yep, we'll recognize and defend your claim to that asteroid," many legal scholars say that's a de facto extension of territorial sovereignty to that asteroid, which Article II of the space treaty explicitly forbids. So we're in a bit of a sticky situation international-law wise. At best the legal framework is unclear and at worst the 2015 SPACE Act contains provisions that are not compatible with existing international law. Petersen: It seems like the 1967 treaty was a little bit short sighted in blocking people from owning parts of space. I guess it was during the Cold War and you can see why the Americans would not want to Soviets claiming the moon or vice versa. So recently, Elon Musk unveiled a plan to send colonists to Mars some time during this century. And if you literally have a colony there on Mars you're going to need property rights. And to have a treaty that might be a hundred or more years old at that point blocking that, it seems like a hurdle that we'll need to clear. People could potentially just ignore the treaty once they're on Mars. So, what kind of solutions do you see for this problem in the future? Salter: Well I think that international law on this should be expanded and clarified on this just for clarity's sake. I don't think we need to rely on publically protected and enforced property rights to get things like space commerce or Mars colonies or all that cool science fiction stuff that actually now doesn't seem so infeasible. If you look throughout history, there are many, many examples of legal systems that are purely private and voluntary. And they are purely voluntary because the property claims underlying that legal system are self enforcing. We don't need to rely on the state, a monopoly enforcer of social rules. We don't need to rely on the state to enforce our property rights. Given the situation we find ourselves in, I will respect your property rights because it's in my self-interest to do so and you will respect my property rights because it's in your self-interest to do so. And it seems like that's incredible. If there's no monopoly enforcer protecting things, how can we have a viable legal order? But again if we look throughout history we see lots and lots of examples of these private legal regimes. In fact, one of them exists today. International trade law is almost entirely privately produced. International trade is almost entirely privately governed. And it's not hard to see why: there's no international super sovereign that can enforce property rights over disputes if Al is from one country and Bob is from another country. And so given that problem, traders going all the way back to the middle ages had to come up with a body of voluntary and self-enforcing law if they wanted to exchange across political boundaries. And it turns out that this law has worked out very, very well. The basics haven't changed in pretty much a thousand years and while it's being applied in newer and more interesting ways, the foundation is solid. And I think that the situation in which international traders find themselves in today---"international anarchy" because again there is no international super sovereign---closely matches the situation that commercial entities would find themselves in in doing space commerce. So I think that there's a lot of potential for existing international and commercial trade law to provide a governance framework for outer-space commerce going forward. Petersen: Yeah, there's a quote from your paper I wanted to read, that deals with these international frameworks going back to the middle ages. It says: Following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, the volume of international trade shrank considerably. The legal infrastructure provided by the Empire no longer stood, and the transition away from this order caused significant commercial disruption. By the ninth and tenth centuries, trade was recovering. Across Europe, a professional merchant class emerged and developed mechanisms to resolve disputes over property rights and contract enforcement, even when subjects were from different polities and thus no national court had jurisdiction. So can you explain more about how that system developed, and how something that we developed here on Earth a millennium ago, how can that apply to space? They would seem to be very different settings. Salter: So they're different settings geographically, but I think the economic and legal problem is the same: facilitating coordination and cooperation among disparate entities when there is no possibility of turning to something like a state to serve as an overarching referee and arbiter. And so the medieval law merchant, called the Lex Mercatoria, was basically a self-enforcing system of property law and the legal rules that went along with it. And what's interesting about that is that when we think of law we normally think of a body of rules and then we talk about applying those rules in specific circumstances. This most closely works the other way. Law is created whenever international traders enter a contract. And provided that commercial instrument became widespread and actually helped traders achieve their goals---and was mutually beneficial of course---then arbitration courts overseeing merchant disputes would come to see that sort of contractual arrangement as valid. And so the arbitrator is less making law than recognizing law---a body of rules for coordinating behaviour---that actually exists. So if I'm a trader form some country in medieval Europe and I'm trading with another guy in another country, obviously I can't turn to my king to enforce my property rights because he doesn't have jurisdiction over your country. You can't turn to your king to enforce jurisdiction. In some situations maybe Church court can act as a venue for arbitration and dispute resolution, but most of the time what they did was---if they had a dispute---they would find some neutral third-party merchant who was an expert in the area and say, "Look, we have this dispute. Here is this contract. I think I was supposed to do X, my trading partner disagrees. He thought I was supposed to do Y. Can you help us sort this out?" The arbitrator, using his expertise, would look at it and come to a decision, and for the most part they were complied with voluntarily. Because if you went to commercial arbitration in the Lex Mercatoria system and then you ignored a ruling, you would become known as a defector, as a cheater, as someone who didn't act or uphold his or her word. And international trade was a relatively small and close-knit community and so that information would get around. You'd be branded as someone as not worthy of doing business with. And so you could cheat and get a payoff now, but you would risk that no one would trade with you in the future. So you'd be losing all future business, which is why most agreements, both for the medieval law merchant and the current law merchant---the current system of international commercial law---are actually complied with and adhered to voluntarily. Petersen: OK, so what kind of legal disputes do you see potentially arising in space? What sort of resources might people come to have conflicts over? Salter: Good question. I think the most obvious one, at least to me, is probably with asteroid mining companies. So if I go land on an asteroid and I want to mine it for valuable minerals, do I own the entire asteroid? Do I own just a portion of its surface? What happens if there's water underneath the asteroid and someone wants to go in and get the water while you're getting the minerals? How deep, literally geographically, down into the center of the asteroid do my property claims go? And water, once you're actually in space, is pretty valuable because it's used for making rocket fuel, essentially. And also, water is very heavy. As we discussed earlier, it's really expensive to get water into orbit. So if there's water already in space, in an asteroid, that's a valuable resource. People are going to want that. What happens if you want the minerals and I want the water? But me going to get the water creates a situation where you can't go and get the minerals. Maybe my mining operation is in the way of yours. Those are very real disputes that there are actually very real analogues of here on Earth that we're going to have to go and settle in space. Petersen: I'm reminded of, during the California gold rush they developed an elaborate set of rules for how large a claim an individual gold miner could mine. And how you would draw the lines between different people's claims, and they established de facto courts to deal with claim jumpers. So we're thinking that California during the gold rush might as well have been outer space, it was so far from the rest of civilization. And so we're more or less thinking that something like that would occur. Salter: Exactly. Economically, I think this situation is very closely analogous. Gold miners in California are outside of the reach of the formal US Government. They're in the metaphorical Hobbesian jungle, a state of nature with respect to each other. Orthodox theories of social cooperation says they shouldn't be able to cooperate and yet they clearly did, historically. The gold rush is a really interesting period of American history to study for that. There's also a book by scholars Anderson and Hill called The Not So Wild, Wild West. We have this impression from Hollywood that the American frontier was a violent and lawless place, when in fact most likely the opposite was true, because people knew that they didn't have access to formal dispute resolution mechanisms offered by the US Government they had to come up with their own. And they worked relatively well. And I think that's the situation we find ourselves in in space. There are governments "nearby" but given current international law they can't actually extend their jurisdiction into space and therefore mediate space-related disputes. Or at lease some disputes. And so we have to have space tourism companies coming to agreements with asteroid mining companies coming into agreements with communication satellite providers. There needs to be a body of voluntary and self-enforcing rules, and again I think that there are numerous historical examples you can point to that should lead us to be actually pretty optimistic about this. Private law is not just feasible but it is also desirable because it has some pretty nice consequences in terms of creating incentives for making and stewarding wealth. Petersen: So, the nice thing about private law, you sort of alluded to it earlier but Hayek makes this distinction between law and legislation, and the nice thing is it's adaptive. When you encounter new issues and new problems you set new precedents that can change and adapt with the circumstances. That's one major advantage of private law, right? Salter: It's important to recognize that that's not unique to private law. That also exists in the common law legal system that exists in the Anglo-American tradition. So the benefits of specifically private law---I think we're talking about private law here as opposed to some sort of common-law extension into space which again, Article II of the space treaty seems to say that's not OK. So given that, are these adaptive features of a purely private legal system good enough to facilitate social cooperation and basically get people to not fight with each other? And I think they are. It's sort of a bottom-up process for discovering rather than creating law. There are many rules that are probably equally feasible. It's a question of finding the rules that best give individuals incentives to act in a socially responsible way. And we also want those rules to provide for orderly, quick, and low-cost dispute resolution. People are going to disagree; it's inevitable. What we want is for a legal system that is sufficiently adaptable so it can tend to specific circumstances, but also sufficiently general that individuals can form reliable expectations of their trading partners' behaviour. And as Hayek pointed out, private law is one kind of law that has that dual feature that we like so much: adaptability yet at the same time predictability. So it's not the case that only private law can have that. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that private law can have that, and given current international law, that's the only ball game in town. Petersen: So, when you said about clarifying the rules, do you feel that if the governments of the world were to say right now that, "disputes in outer space are not our jurisdiction, you're on your own," and codify that and maybe have another treaty, do you think that would hasten the development of these private mechanisms? strong>Salter: I think it would. The private mechanisms are only going to arise as needed in a private law system. When there's no actual dispute and no actual thing being tested, there doesn't need to be a rule for overcoming one party's disputes or claims against the other. So I personally actually not only think that private law is desirable in space just because of current international law. I would actually like to see space kept "safe" for private law. Because it has all these nice, socially beneficial properties in terms of aligning people's incentives and giving them the information they need to do good things. And if you look at the most likely counterpart---imagine international law were amended---what's likely to happen is there would be some international governance body, a regulatory body that's given authority over space activities. And once we embrace that sort of bureaucratic regulatory solution, that comes with all sorts of political economy and public choice problems. How do the regulators get the information necessary to make good rules? What are the incentives to make good rules? I think that several schools of economics and legal thought have shown that in this case embracing a top-down regulatory solution would actually be pretty dangerous. So I would like to see international law clarified, but I would also like to see private law prevail in space. Petersen: Right, and if we're talking about particularly humans in space, as in the case of a Mars colony, it would seem to be undesirable to bring our baggage and our governance here to a place as distant as Mars. The people there are likely to face all sorts of their own problems. And if there was part of Mars that was governed by, say, the US Government you would almost face the same problems the Thirteen Colonies had being governed by the British. You have this vast gulf between the people who are doing the governing and the people who are being governed. So could a Mars colony function on private law? Salter: Wow, that's a fascinating question and one that I didn't tackle in the paper. That's actually a little beyond my expertise in this area. I don't see any reason why it couldn't, simply because I don't see the economic and legal problems that potential Martian colonists would face are any different than people on the international law merchant scenario would face. Or individuals in medieval Iceland---who had their own body of voluntary and private law---face. I think the best analogy for these sorts of situations is the economic literature for what is sometimes called "analytic anarchy." And people are sometimes scared of it because the word "anarchy" is in there. But all anarchy means in this context is we don't have recourse to a nation state to solve our disputes for us. So if we're going to get governance, we're going to have to find a way to do it ourselves. It has to be voluntary, it has to be agreeable to all parties, and it has to do a good job at facilitating social cooperation. So how do people actually do that when they don't have access to the nation state? Which is again pretty new in human history. So if you're looking at any time prior to 1648, there's got to be some way of generating order. And if you look at history I think you have a lot of examples of proprietary communities and voluntary communities which can be models for a Martian colony. So to make a long point short, I don't see any evidence that a Martian colony cannot be purely privately governed. And I don't think we have any reasons to think so because the problems they're going to face have been faced historically and overcome by people in various times and places. Petersen: Do you have any closing thoughts about the future of space and the role of economics in helping us achieve our goals there? Salter: I think that economics is going to be particularly useful in helping us highlight exactly which potential problems are worth caring about and, of those problems, which ones deserve or merit public policy responses. So, for example, I don't think there's any reason to be afraid of creating a private law governing space. I'm actually encouraged by that prospect. But that doesn't mean that domestic agencies, especially national agencies, don't have a role in making space a formidable and habitable environment. We just spent the first half an hour talking about space debris, right? And there's lots of things that US agencies can do to mitigate space debris for example. Various agencies can have a rule, and there are such rules in place now, saying if you're going to orbit a space craft you’ve got to provide for de-orbiting the debris and also de-orbiting the space craft when it's no longer useful. So economics, and particularly the economic way of thinking, can help us identify, OK this anarchy in space problem is not actually a problem. Private law is viable, so we don't have to worry about that. Oh, space debris is a problem because we have this common pool resources problem, externality problems, and the usual solutions---taxes and or property rights---aren't feasible. So we need to find some other way, maybe harnessing market mechanisms at the margin to address these. And I think the economic perspective is going to do a good job at cautioning us at taking a top-down approach at space governance. The temptation is huge to say, "OK, we're on the verge of major space breakthroughs. Let's sit down and write down a body of rules that's going to govern space." That's really dangerous because there's no way that you and I sitting in our armchairs can see all the eventualities or problems that people will confront in space. And so the rules that we write are almost certainly going to have little to no relationship to those problems, and therefore won't help commercial and or government actors solve those problems. So figuring out what's important and avoiding the temptation to engage in what Hayek called "The Pretense of Knowledge." Thinking that we can learn and know and plan more than we can actually do. Petersen: My guest today has been Alex Salter. Alex, thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Salter: It's been a pleasure. Thanks again for having me.
The importance of looking at the American colonial period not as the ‘Thirteen Colonies’ but as a British America consisting of twenty-six colonies and provinces. This discussion emphasises the importance of looking at the American colonial period not as the ‘Thirteen Colonies’ but as a British America consisting of twenty-six colonies and provinces. The US founding myth has persisted in part because it is such a big part of American culture and identity that no one questions it, and because it has been reinforced by a Canadian national narrative which emphasised loyalty to King and Empire to distinguish it from the US. Drawing parallels to contemporaneous demonstrations in Britain and the existence of Stamp Act riots in Nova Scotia and the West Indies I will argue that the Stamp Act riots should not necessarily be seen as the start of a revolution, and dispute the image of Loyalists as predominately wealthy merchants and government officials.
The importance of looking at the American colonial period not as the ‘Thirteen Colonies’ but as a British America consisting of twenty-six colonies and provinces. This discussion emphasises the importance of looking at the American colonial period not as the ‘Thirteen Colonies’ but as a British America consisting of twenty-six colonies and provinces. The US founding myth has persisted in part because it is such a big part of American culture and identity that no one questions it, and because it has been reinforced by a Canadian national narrative which emphasised loyalty to King and Empire to distinguish it from the US. Drawing parallels to contemporaneous demonstrations in Britain and the existence of Stamp Act riots in Nova Scotia and the West Indies I will argue that the Stamp Act riots should not necessarily be seen as the start of a revolution, and dispute the image of Loyalists as predominately wealthy merchants and government officials.
A brief tour of the Thirteen Colonies.
Guest Robert Olwell describes the Royal Proclamation of 1763, its effects on the history of colonial North America, and ponders whether it is really the smoking gun that caused the American Revolution as some have claimed.
Institute for the Study of the Americas Speaker: Professor Linda Colley (Shelby M.C. Davis 1958 Professor of History, Princeton University) The outbreak of revolution in the Thirteen Colonies in 1776, in France in 1789, and in Haiti in 1791, fa...
Institute for the Study of the Americas Speaker: Professor Linda Colley (Shelby M.C. Davis 1958 Professor of History, Princeton University) The outbreak of revolution in the Thirteen Colonies in 1776, in France in 1789, and in Haiti in 1791, fa...
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
