Best us revolution & founding history books according to redditors

I'm a graduate student of history, and I'd recommend a book my undergraduate adviser had me read. If you aren't happy with the wiki, I do have a recommendation. Gordon Woods modern history of the revolution is a good social history of how people thought about the revolution, before during and after. He shows where they disagreed and why we ended up with the form of government and political culture that we did.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Revolution-History-Library-Chronicles/dp/0812970411

Oh a time for my 300 level American Revolution class knowledge to shine!

I would say it was more of a colonial victory and depending on how you look at it a French loss.

The British Navy was stretched very thin around the world protecting its colonial assets and trade routes. In the colonies the Navy was tasked with helping to capture and hold major ports, keeping smugglers from bringing goods in and out of the colonies, and protecting trade vessels from privateers. So in that regard yes they had the upper hand, but the Navy was doing that in many parts of the Empire and it was spread pretty thin when the French joined.

In regards to what I mean as a colonial victory I think that Washington knew that the only way to win independence was to keep an army in the field until the French joined. The war cost the British crown a lot of money and it also cost British merchants a lot of money, the American colonies were Britain's best market for goods. Keeping an army in the field wasn't easy for Washington by any means, he had little financial support and recruiting was hard when men felt like he was merely running away. However, he achieved his goals and was right.

As far as what I mean by a French loss, once the French entered the war on the side of the colonists the war became a world war. Britain had already lost a lot of money in the previous years of the war and did not want to risk losing other colonial assets, especially to their rivals the French. Britain's focus on the American colonies had a significant drop in order to protect their Empire. And once the British gave up in North America they were able to focus on the French and defeat them. If you look at the long term consequences of the French joining the war from their perspective you can see how it led to their money problems, the French Revolution, Napoleon, and losing the Louisiana territory.

And that's a very simplified reason of why I think it was a French loss and American victory.

If you have any interest on American privateers and the effect that they had on British shipping and their Navy check out Patriot Pirates by Robbert H. Patton.

http://www.amazon.com/Patriot-Pirates-Vintage-Robert-Patton/dp/0307390551

I'll see if I can't find some other sources to put down for all of this, but I haven't read anything on this in about a year so it might take a minute to remember the books I read.

For people like me who want this, here's a link to Amazon.

You can also get copies of the Bill of Rights and, of course, the Declaration of independence for $25 total (+shipping). Pretty nice deal for nice hardcovers like these.

Several years ago, in an effort to better understand that side of the aisle, I took a coworkers advice and borrowed Common Sense to read over the summer. While there was certainly a lot of content I didn't agree with it was overall a well written book, and he went through great lengths to explain why he felt the way he did. It actually opened my eyes to the real problems of gerrymandering and how effective it is at marginalizing large groups of individuals in a voting population.

Point being, Beck has always been a very intelligent person and the character you saw / heard on his show was just that, a character. While he is absolutely a devout conservative, I think he's capable of being much more reasonable when he isn't paid to be a jerkoff. Something tells me that's the case with a lot of media personalities, which is what makes them so reprehensible.

Even Christopher Hitchens admits this was an attempt to portray the United States as less religious than it actually was, given it was a treaty made to Muslim nations. In short, it's not a good argument to use to show the US was not founded on religious principles.

Link

"Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands."

This book also verifies the fact.

Just do some reading for context before you reference something like this. It's a common historical error.

I just found them on Amazon for about $10 a piece. I've never actually owned a copy and when I told my pet bald eagle that, he cried. Thank God for One Day shipping!

Constitution:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557091056/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_T4Z0CbV6979HE

Declaration of Independence: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557094489/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_k5Z0CbV4R9BPH

I think this is an informative answer, but I'm going to point out that you shifted terminology in an important way. The question asks if the U.S. is an "empire." Your answer is about "imperialism." These are analytically differentiable—the former is a governance/sovereignty structure the latter is a type of foreign policy. Hans Morgenthau (Politics among Nations) would chide you for conflating the two. (The unflaired commenters below also make this mistake.)

Can you have a non-imperialist empire? Yes. Can you have an imperialist non-empire? Yes.

As far as the OP's question, you can certainly make the argument that early U.S. expansion was conceived of as constructing an empire. Even an "empire of liberty" as Thomas Jefferson put it. Pop historian Niall Ferguson makes this kind of argument as well in his book Colossus.

Structurally a federation and an empire are somewhat analogous. It's no secret that the Romans copied the Achaemenid satrapy structure for their own empire, and the the Founding Fathers leaned heavily on their readings of the Romans when conceiving of the political theory foundation for the U.S. Constitution. The difference would be the location of sovereignty and the means by which the federation/empire is constructed. For the Achaemenids and Romans it was conquest by the imperial forces. For the United States it was first settlers, filibusterers, and corporations, and then eventually the federal army. The incorporation of a new state wasn't through conquest (the prospective state and the Congress had to vote on accession), but the acquisition of new territory was through conquest. There are parallels and analogies between early U.S. expansion and the traditional land empires (another interesting parallel is with the Russian Empire's expansion, which used remarkably similar liberal means to expand across Eurasia in the 1700s/1800s). But the construction of sovereignty was different in the case of the U.S. than in traditional empires of conquest and tribute.

It's more complicated than that. The 2nd Great Awakening began in the decades following the Revolution, so while the founders were one of the least religious generations in American history, the generation immediately following was one of the most religious.

In order to remain relevant, the members of the founders who were struggling to still remain relevant in American politics began to make, often misguided and half-hearted, attempts to appear religious. So, you can quote mine people like Jefferson during this period for religious appeals.

Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty covers the time period pretty well, if anyone is interested.

I'd also recommend Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution. It's very much about social and demographic conditions that affected the structure and philosophy of colonial society before and after the war. As far as how Americans thought of community I think it's a slam dunk. He goes very in detail about how things like the family unit changes, how Americans viewed the hierarchical class structure, and how they perceive and expand upon republican ideas about government post-war.

https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883

First thing that should be noted is that your perception of the way the American Revolution progressed is incorrect, especially in New England.

In New England the tradition of having all adult males between the ages of 16 and 60 serve in the militia goes back to almost the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The militia were integral parts of the colony's defensive and offensive capabilities, protecting against hostile Indian attacks and conducting raids of their own.

The earliest Ranger battalions were formed of the best of the militia units, and what became known as the minute men was a concept that was discussed far earlier than the Revolution.

Regarding the build up to the Revolution itself, the New England colonists began preparing for war as early as 1773, after passage of the Intolerable Acts.

By spring of 1774 the colonial militias had purged their ranks of all untrustworthy officers (i.e. anybody with the least bit of sympathy to the Crown forces), and were continuing on conducting their regular militia training.

On September 1, 1774 a major event took place which became known as the Powder Alarm. (The Wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of the action.) The end result of this was tens of thousands of New England militia on the road or near Boston within the space of 24 hours (there may have been as many as 40,000 men on the road).

That same month the town of Worcester Massachusetts told it's representative to the Provincial Congress (Timothy Bigelow) to go ahead and press the Provincial Congress for independence, and to work towards that goal. Worcester was the first town to shut down British courts, but by the end of 1774 the only places that royal authority had any sway was Boston itself, and it's immediate vicinity (basically wherever troops could be marched to quickly).

The Provincial Congress set up a war board that started to prepare supplies, weapons, ammunition, etc. for an army of 15,000 men (what they estimated would be the number of militia that would be called out as needed). They also recommended reorganizing the militia companies so that each town had a minute company and a regular company (or more than one depending on size). Not all towns had completed this by April 19, 1775. For example Lexington had no minute company.

Worcester was one major supply depot for the Provincial Congress, and Concord was the other. We're talking about literally tons of material here. Powder, food, various trenching tools, cannon, even muskets (Concord history has it that Captain Barret had some muskets buried in the furrows of his fields to hide them from the British.)

Lexington was targeted because there was suspicion that four brass cannon were there. These four brass cannon had been stolen from under the noses of the British in Boston, and Gage wanted them back.

Once the fighting began and Boston was under siege by the Massachusetts militia, the Continental Congress passed a resolution adopting that army as the national army. It was mostly comprised of New Englanders at that point, although units were arriving from all over the colonies. One of the things Washington had to do was do a massive reorganization, in addition to everything else.

As for training, the militia tended to use the same manuals as the British army. In the 18th century training was done on a regimental level, and each commander conducted it the best way he saw fit. As long as certain expectations were met, that was fine. American militia units either used the same manuals the British used, or used manuals that were written by Americans (but largely based on the British model), or in some cases were trained by men who had served in the British Army in the French & Indian War.

So the training was very similar. There are several examples of the Continental Army standing up to well trained British soldiers in traditional 18th century warfare. There are a couple of instances during the Saratoga campaign, but particularly during the Battle of Brandywine. Unfortunately Brandywine ended as a loss, causing Washington to retreat to winter quarters.

Von Steuben arrived in America shortly after Brandywine and made his way to Washington. Steuben had an enormous impact on the Continental Army because of the training he conducted. It's not that the Continental Army wasn't being trained, but again they were using the British model.

Steuben streamlined the training, and standardized the manual so every unit was using the same manual. His method of training was to take someone from every company, train those men up to speed, and then have those men go back and train the rest of their company.

There are some places where the militia wasn't nearly as militant and organized as New England. The Middle States were very lukewarm politically, so weren't preparing for any sort of conflict. Pennsylvania didn't even establish a militia until after the beginning of hostilities because of the control of the Quakers. The Southern states were also slow to adopt general militia requirements.

As for examples of people rising up to organize themselves for war in the absence of government forces, you might want to look at the militias in the Spanish Civil War (paging /u/tobbinator and /u/domini_canes), or for more recent conflicts look at the YPG/YPJ in the Syrian conflict.

Edit:

If you want sources or additional reading material I'll be happy to provide them later.

Sources:

Powder Alarm 1774 by Robert Richmond which is the best single account of the event and includes eye witness accounts of the scene that night?

Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer. He discusses it, but he's got the best account of the night of April 19, 1775 of anything I've read on the subject.

The First American Revolution: Before Lexington and Concord by Ray Raphael

[The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution] by John R. Galvin. Most informative account of the development of the militia in Massachusetts.

I'll list more later. I need to put my son to bed.

Want to add a couple things:

1. It's worth noting that in this instance that Benjamin Lincoln's mercenary militia was funded by the Boston merchants after Gov. Bowdoin's attempt to rise the existing Massachusetts militia failed. Because the existing militia was largely comprised of the class of people rebelling to begin with, many of the units simply refused a call to bring up arms against their neighbors, family members, even themselves. The trials that followed charged many members of the normal militia as leaders in the rebellion. Bowdoin even tried to get militias from different states to help put down the rebels, but he was unsuccessful. (Why would New Hampshire want to send forces?) So, the merchants put it in their own hands.
   
   
2. Jefferson's reaction to Shays' is difficult to unpack and going to be different than some of the other founding fathers. Someone asked a slightly similar question a while ago that I unpacked here.
   
   My go-to suggestions for Shays readings are Szatmary's Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection and Leo Richards's Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle.

If you're going to read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, I think you also need to at least skim:

1. The Articles of Confederation
   
   
2. The Anti-Federalist Papers
   
   
   I think there's a dangerous tendency to view the founding documents as if God gave them directly to James Madison, when in fact the Constitution was fundamentally a reaction to problems with the Articles of Confederation, and faced some significant opposition at the time.
   
   I also think the Constitutional Convention notes are super interesting, although this is getting pretty far afield from OP's question. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/summary/
   
   u/eplinx, to help place all these primary documents in context, you might also read something like Decision in Philadelphia, which basically turns the Constitutional Convention into a story.

The early republic wasn't really my field, so I think all the relevant books are out in the garage. I'm wracking my brain trying to come up with some of the better volumes I read as an undergrad, but nothing's coming to mind, except for From Colony to Superpower by George Herring.
(A weighty tome; it's pretty handy as a general reference, since it covers a lot of ground, but it's not ideal for what you're asking. Probably also why I remember it offhand. It lives on my shelf.) I'm not sure I can really recommend it for you, but it does cover a lot of this.


At the moment, being a bit tipsy and disinclined to fight raccoons in the cold and dark, what I'd suggest is looking into a book on the Jay Treaty. If you can find a decent one—and I'm sorry I can't be more help—that should cover the nature of a lot of the shape of Anglo-American relations in the wake of the revolution. It's earlier than the period we're talking about here, but it's an excellent place to start when trying to parse out America's position in the world in the early days.

I'd suggest saying away from biographies; most biographies of figures from that period are little more than hagiography.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more help. If you want anything between the Civil War and the end of WWII, I can probably be more useful.

The American Constitution itself is really considered the first of it's kind. There are many things that influenced the Constitution, and gave the Constitution it's name.

The founding of the American Republic - and the constitution - was strongly influenced by the Roman Republic. The framers studied classical history extensively and often looked at the "Constitutio" which where edicts, decrees and rescripts that governed the Roman Republic and later empire.The Roman constitution was not a single document, but rather a series of precedents and traditions that formed the structure in which the government operated. Later the Roman Emperor declared the Constitutio Antoniniana, which granted citizenship to freemen living in the Roman Republic.

I believe (and I am a American history student, not a roman history) that using the term to describe the core laws that was popularized by Livy's Ab Urbe condita which described the history of the Roman Republic. Later the term described edicts from the emperor, and the most important decrees by the Pope (Apostolic constitution) starting in the 1570s.

The idea of the constitution being a legal contract was influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. The Magna Carta, which restricted the powers of government, and the "British Constitution" which like the roman Constitution was mainly tradition based were also influential, and led to the idea that authority could be granted by agreement rather then by princely authority.

The early colonies where created on the basis of charters that granted colonies under the authority of the government of England. In 1630, the settlers of Connecticut formed their government not based off of the external charter, but instead drafted the "Fundamental Orders." When the colonies declared independence, they chose likewise to replace the defunct charters with documents, which they called "Constitutions"

Sources -
Ab Urbe condita - http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/livius/trans1.html
The Social Contract: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
The Radicalism of the American Revolution: http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883
The Creaton of the American Republic: http://www.amazon.com/The-Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0CZ9HPT323HSRGHGG1WG
Ancient Rome in America: http://shc.stanford.edu/news/research/ancient-rome-america
The Founders and the Classics

We don't get our info from Wikipedia. The core of the history we tell is from Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer. And that book is like 50% references.

https://smile.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-AmazonClassics-Alexander-Hamilton-ebook/dp/B075173F15/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2

Here is what Google has found for me. Note that all I could do was match the the cover images so I can't be certain that these are the same books.

https://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independence-Little-Books-Wisdom/dp/1557094489

https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-Little-Wisdom/dp/1557091056/

ISBNs are listed on each page for ease of searching. It also appears there are other books like this too. Here is a different link to change things up.

https://www.applewoodbooks.com/cw_ProductSeries.aspx?k=Little+Books+of+Wisdom

gotta love how beck writes a book and calls it "inspired by thomas paine", a man that was a classical liberal, supported free public education and social security, and criticized organized religion. I still struggle to accept that so many millions of americans can be so irrational.

I swear everytime I talk about this book I always use the wrong dang title.

https://www.amazon.com/Royalist-Revolution-Monarchy-American-Founding/dp/067473534X

It is the Royalist Revolution. My mistake.

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Spangled-Crown-Simple-American-Monarchy/dp/1944339051

https://www.amazon.com/Royalist-Revolution-Monarchy-American-Founding/dp/067473534X

These are the other 2 books usually recommended.

I simply COULD NOT agree more with the OP (johnboy15). Case-in-point: the one part of the Republican Party with integrity -- however kooky they may seem to some, they do have integrity (Ron Paul & Co.) -- are now being co-opted by the liars. Fox News and Co. has set up Glenn Beck as the way to shepherd Paulites into the "mainstream" Republicans fold. This is because they know if Republicans were actually conservative, the whole gravy train -- the handouts to big business, the wars for Israel, the splintering of the electorate over nonsense issues like abortion -- would come to a screeching halt.

1. Ron Paul supporters use this flag as a symbol? So what does Glenn Beck use as the symbol of his new 9.12 project?
   
   
2. Ron Paul supporters revisit Thomas Paine's classic work? So what does Glenn Beck use his pulpit to write?
   
   
3. Ron Paul is the first mainstream figure to start criticizing the Fed and one of his biggest supporters is Peter Schiff? Glenn Beck invites who on this show to say "The Fed got us into this mess"?

From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. As the title suggests, the book goes beyond the last 100 years, but if that's all you want to read about, it's easy enough to start in the middle.

Response 2 - part 2

> In the tragic case in your town, do you think the woman, if armed, could have shot three men?

I am interested in your assessment of what should have been done instead. Those aggressors were (arguably) kids. As my statistics suggest, most people flee when faced with an armed victim. If not immediately, they'll almost certainly do so once the victim opens fire and they watch one of their friends shot before their eyes. Just because there isn't a 100% chance of her avoiding gang rape, she should just not resist?

Edit: I just want to add to this: multiple invaders are shot/repelled by a single victim with a gun all the time. Source 1, source 2, and many more can be Googled. Also, after viewing the videos of the two men, Keanu and Jerry, participating in firearms sports with great speed and precision, how can you doubt that some people have the skill to place precise rounds on multiple targets in very short time frames? Jerry Miculek once again shows that a practiced individual can engage multiple targets. Obviously he is a master of his craft but I can tell you from personal experience that many, many people who train with their guns can accurately and consistently engage multiple targets in mere seconds.

> Likewise, though a gun might have been able to help, unless you carry a gun to the door or have one on the wall by the door

We run the risk of descending into the endless quicksand of "what if" scenarios. However, I can give you my strategy for my own protection. At night, I keep my personal defense firearm within arm's reach and leave my exterior lights on. During the day, I spend much of my time working from home and therefore keep my firearm generally within arm's reach, although I undoubtedly feel safer in broad daylight in my own home. When I answer the door, I do not touch the lock until I have looked through a window and the peephole in the door. When/if I do answer it, I have my gun in a holster, concealed. When I leave the house, I carry the same gun concealed, in a holster. The vast majority of self-defense in any form is situational awareness and I very consciously practice this discipline. Many responsible gun owners do the same. Does this make me invincible? Certainly not. Security is always a balance between practicality and security and I have chosen the ratio with which I feel most comfortable for my own life. I have the right to take measures to protect myself, no matter how likely or unlikely I am to suffer a threat to my life.

> Much as I hope your grandmother would be able to scare off invaders, she might have to have a gun on her person at all times in the house to be able to access it in case of an emergency.

See my previous paragraph. Many people do wear a small pistol throughout the day, especially weaker individuals or those who have been the victim of a traumatic attack in the past. Again, this applies inside and outside the home. I see no problem with this if it is what the individual wants to do.

> the only examples given were from 1981 and 1983, and regardless of what the law said, those were both criminal negligence, and anomalous cases

Do you think these types of incidents stopped in 1986? We're not talking about stale statistical data here. The point wasn't the stories. The stories were simply illustrations of worst-case scenarios. The point was that, regardless of your or my personal opinions on the law and its rulings, that is the way things work and so you're better off admitting it and preparing for it. The UK has similar precedent in practice, even if it's not as explicitly worded as the US cases.

> It may not seem very reassuring, but I still honestly believe that the police will come.

That is completely your right! That same freedom to make individual choices, that freedom that I will defend with my life, allows you to make that determination for you and your family and I do not fault you for that in the least. The only time I begin to fault you is when you start try to decide that others should think and act as you do. Personally, "believe" is too weak for me to risk my life. I prefer to use raw logic, seek out scientific evidence and statistics, and choose the path for myself and my family with the greatest probability of success.

This is related to police response time. Sure the police will probably eventually come, but when? Don't forget all the news articles I cited about aggressors shooting their victims even after full compliance.

• US police response times
  
• Dallas. Of particular note is this chart
  
• Seattle
  
• New Orleans
  
• UK police response times (I just Googled for some examples - there are many more sources)
  
• Norfolk
  
• Metropolitan Police
  
• West Yorkshire
  
• General article
  
• personal accounts from r/ccw
  
• https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/2ccgrj/home_invasion_last_night_while_i_slept_almost/
  
• https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/2k23ux/why_i_carry/
  
  There is much more data out there. So with this wild variance in times based on department, time of day, time of year, and random variables, picture your scenario: You need the police. When you need the police because you fear for your safety, you need them now. Assuming you could get a call out, what could an attacker do to you or your wife in seven minutes? Ten? Twenty? An hour? Remember all the variables involved: is he stronger, is he armed, are there multiple attackers? Again, if you feel comfortable risking your life with the police response time for given scenario, then by all means, do so. Do not try to force everyone else to accept the risks and to hope for the best-case police response in their time of need. On a related note, I also keep a fire extinguisher in my house.
  
  > However, no matter how good you are, you can make mistakes. A gun is still an imperfect weapon, and a lot can go wrong.
  
  True, but you agreed that odds are still better than with the other options. Again, I want the best tool to preserve innocent life. Additionally, I keep my firearms in pristine condition, I train hard with them, and generally make every effort to minimize failures. The only thing I haven't done is inject myself with a massive dose of adrenaline and made the attempt to measure my weapon handling skills and accuracy. What I have done, though, is to train regularly. When fight-or-flight instinct takes over, training kicks in. Make it second-nature, and your training will serve you well. When Star Trek phasers are invented and I can set mine to "stun," I'll most likely use that instead. Until such a reliable model becomes available, I'm sticking to the best option I have, at least for self-defense.
  
  > looting and violence would be accentuated by every angry civilian having a gun.
  
  Again, I'm worried about the law-abiding and the innocent. With that in mind: "Anger" does not imply irrationality and psychopathy, with every emotionally-perturbed individual running amok, bent on indiscriminate destruction. Additionally, who is to say that "everyone will have a gun?" Statistically this is not the case and is closer to hyperbole. What if no one has guns? How will families protect themselves and/or their livelihoods? One family (a man, a woman, and two young children) cannot hope to stand much of a chance against two men, for example, who, intent on using the temporary disruption in social structure, kick down the family's door, and beat the husband to death with baseball bats. Again, guns are equalizers. Historically, such things as riots (source 1, source 2) provide us, as observers, with some idea of how it all goes down.
  
  > few of which can be beaten by mere force, such as the current rise of the plutocracy
  
  Force is a last resort. Of course plutocracy can be beaten by force as can any kind of government. Any living thing can. In a worst-case scenario, we would see a modern-day equivalent of the French Revolution or the American Revolution in which the populace, after having tried every legal recourse to get the government or ruling bodies to address their grievances, turns to the only other solution available: force. A plutocracy is exactly what those two revolutions toppled. I genuinely believe that, if you haven't already, you need to read the book The American Revolution: A History by Gordon S. Wood. The more I think about it, the more I am confused by your statement. I would be interested in hearing your rationale for why a plutocracy could not be defeated though force.

This one is good: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism

Freethinkers by Jacoby. I found it quite interesting.

This book is a spectacular look at some of the motivations. There were a lot of forces and motivations for the war and many people had their own angles. There were some people who made a lot of money during the revolutionary war and did some really shady things.


https://www.amazon.com/Patriot-Pirates-Privateer-American-Revolution/dp/0307390551

To shed light on otherwise unknown figures in his story was the greatest joy of making this film.

His 2 mothers were so important to him. And telling their story seems essential in understanding his.

Filmically, one of my favorite parts was depicting his blossoming education. And showing how it changed him. Forming a special bond with his teacher, making friends with classmates and being introduced to great texts all, oddly, seemed cinematic. At the time, the books that completely opened his intellect were Robinson Crusoe, Pilgrim's Progress, Aesop's Fables, A Thousand And One Arabian Knights, and The Bible. He devoured all of them, and carried them with him all his life.

He would often work neighbor's fields to get a book from them for his pay. Interestingly, the books shown in the film are editions that were published around the years that Lincoln would have read them. I bought them online through overseas dealers (or American ones too, there was one from Philadelphia). That's a little bit of trivia that I am proud of. Those aren't reproductions, those are the real deal.

On the topic of the school sequence when he finally begins his education, the voiceover in the picture was taken from George Washington's text "Rules of Civility." He wrote it when he was 14 years old, as a handbook for how young boys could become gentlemen.

Tons of great historians that don't 100% disagree with Chomsky, but provide an alternate perspective. Great way to build a world history and world politics narrative that covers all perspectives.


Here are two off the top of my head:


Dr. Daniele Bolelli's History on Fire series counters Chomsky's views on Theodore Roosevelt. Worth a listen: 1 2 3


Empire of Liberty (by Gordon Wood) has an extensive history on the early American Republic that seems to be more fair regarding our Founding Fathers and the US.

For understanding modern world history, Eric Hobsbawm is the best starting point.

• The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789–1848
  
• [The Age of Capital: 1848–1875] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Capital:_1848%E2%80%931875)
  
• [The Age of Empire: 1875–1914] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Empire:_1875%E2%80%931914)
  
• The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991
  
  Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian and it shows in his work. But even the deeply conservative Niall Ferguson wrote that "his great tetralogy . . . remains the best introduction to modern world history in the English language."
  
  The other modern world history I want to mention is [The Birth of the Modern World] (http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Modern-World-1780-1914/dp/0631236163/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374136637&sr=1-1&keywords=birth+of+the+modern+world). It offers another perspective on the "long 19th century" and, as it is written by a very conservative historian forty years after The Age of Revolution, a nice contrast/counterbalance to Hobsbawm's work.
  
  [A History of the Middle East] (http://www.amazon.com/History-Middle-East-Peter-Mansfield/dp/0143034332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374137117&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+the+middle+east) is a great introduction to Middle Eastern history and politics which is unbiased, factual, and comprehensive.
  
  [The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985] (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Chinese-Revolution-1800-1985/dp/006039076X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137415&sr=1-2&keywords=great+revolution+china) is an excellent book on the birth of modern China. In it, John King Fairbank tries to show the dynamism of Chinese society and that western forces have had much less influence than the western historians who have framed the traditional story seem to believe.
  
  US History
  
  
• [The Radicalism of the American Revolution] (http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137693&sr=1-1&keywords=radicalism+of+the+american+revolution)
  
  
• [The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846] (http://www.amazon.com/Market-Revolution-Jacksonian-America-1815-1846/dp/0195089200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137774&sr=1-1&keywords=the+market+revolution)
  
  
• [What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Hath-God-Wrought-Transformation/dp/0195392434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137821&sr=1-1&keywords=what+hath+god+wrought)
  
  
• [Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877] (http://www.amazon.com/Reconstruction-Americas-Unfinished-Revolution-1863-1877/dp/0060937165/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374137863&sr=1-1&keywords=reconstruction)
  

Well, I would highly recommend renting some textbooks on American politics, American political history, and American political theory. Perhaps start here and work your way up: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-American-Politics-Samuel-Kernell/dp/1568028911

If you find textbooks too dull, then here is a good list of books to get you started:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Federalist-Anti-Federalist-Papers/dp/1495446697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453181599&sr=1-1&keywords=federalist+and+anti-federalist+papers

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-Penguin-Classics-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Inside-Secret-Supreme/dp/1400096790

http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Electoral-Connection-Second-Edition/dp/0300105878

http://www.amazon.com/What-Should-Know-About-Politics/dp/1611452996

http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-between-Education-Technology/dp/0674035305

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491534656

*If you actually take the time to read these, you will be better informed than 99 percent of the voting public. <-- And after you read these, that sentence will terrify you because you will realize each of these books is just an introduction, and the world is being run by technocrats. JK, but not really.

Edit: But really.

I can give some historical context to this.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, it is important to remember a few very important things:

First, immediately after the Boston Massacre, King George order all guns in Boston to be confiscated, effectively disarming the core location of dissent (at the time) in the Colonies. *He also quartered troops in homes through out the area as a means of solidifying his ability to maintain order, leading directly to the 3rd Amendment.

Secondly, at the time of the official outbreak of war, there were no "States". There was no official military at all other than the troops directly under the command of King George. The "Well Organized Militia" was the term created in perpetuity for the Minute Men. The farmers, business owners, and common citizens who took up arms against the British and officially started the War of Independence.

Third, books such as "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy)", written by Stephen P. Halbrook, it is known that one of the key things that allowed the colonies to gain independence was the immediate ability to form a citizen militia (NOT State) and to bring the fight directly to the British troops stationed in the colonies.

TL;DR A "well regulated militia" was not meant to mean a state sponsored, standing military presence. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, it was with the idea that all citizens should maintain the right to arms, and had a duty to the country, to take up arms against any enemy that threatened the nation they were creating.

Not a big fan of the man overall.. but do read his book, "Common Sense".

George Mason at the constitutional convention was fervently against the Bill of Rights for the reason that people might think those ten are the only rights Americans had. So the 9th amendment was a compromise. Not sure it worked though.

This book is a fantastic way to learn more about the constitutional debate: A Brilliant Solution

Enjoy...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557091056/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_G8vHybFNDDSJT

There are so many great books on the subject, depending on what you want to look at specifically. For the period you mention I will give you two books to check out, but I would suggest going back and reading about things long before the revolution also like Braddock's March: How the Man Sent to Seize a Continent Changed American History by Thomas E. Crocker.

A great book that gives some good detail on the lead up to the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution is *The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 by Joseph Ellis. It gives a lot of good information about why the Constitution is shaped the way it is.

A fun book that gives some back story on the 39 people who ended up signing the Constititution is Signing Their Rights Away by Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnese. They also did the book Signing Their Lives Away: The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence

> You do realize that the second amendment never mentions being able to overthrow our government and that is not at all what its intended purpose was right?

It doesn't have to mention it, just like the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights don't have to enumerate their every use case in detail. You can read the writings of the founders at the time to fill in the context, which are overflowing with references to John Locke, to the point where the founders would casually invoke him to support an argument much like we'd do with the founders today (see: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution pg 28).

Locke wrote extensively on the right to revolution and was an obvious inspiration when the founders wrote in the Declaration of independence that people have a natural right to "alter or abolish" "any Form of Government [that] becomes destructive."

> It does specifically state the Militia can be called upon by the President to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
>
> ...
>
> The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow local branches of government to form militias ...

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesn't limit the operative clause, i.e. it's not restricted to militia use. That was obvious from writings of the time but thanks to Heller that's now been legally clarified too.

> Even with all the automatic weapons being fully legal they would have no impact on tanks and little to no impact on aircraft. Drones would be able to wipe out any real revolution pretty quickly. You would need to legalize missiles on private aircraft to even stand a slight chance. You would need rocket propelled grenades and surface to air missiles to even start to combat to power of our current military. The idea we could take out our government by forceful insurrection is laughable today and only held to by those without a clue on how the real world works.

Weird how we got thrashed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan then

See also https://i.imgtc.com/D7G0hkG.png

From Colony to Superpower

About a year ago he included a book recommendation when answering my IAMA question. I never got around to getting it. Ordered.

Empire of Liberty

These are few nonfiction books that I've enjoyed reading this year:

Proust Was a Neuroscientist by Jonah Lehrer

America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar

In the Land of Invented Languages by Arika Okrent

The Radicalism of the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood

I love Robert Ingersoll. Susan Jacoby has some great books, one of them is called The Great Agnostic, which is a biography. It's great, I highly recommend it!

While we are on the subject, my nom de plume originated from Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, which is also an excellent book.

Haven't read it yet but:

https://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701

Ah, then you want to read "Freethinkers" by Jacoby, and you should learn about the Comstock Laws.

Though mainly of everything that lead up to and caused the Revolution, Draper's A Struggle for Power is a fantastic read and I guarantee you will learn a helluva lot and with varying perspectives on the events of the time.

The Age of American Unreason is actually by Susan Jacoby; Dawkins only provided a book jacket quote. I have read and would recommend Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, also by Susan Jacoby.

If you're looking for popular history, check out David Hackett Fisher:

Paul Revere's Ride:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003V8AFBW/

Washington's Crossing:

https://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-Crossing-Pivotal-Moments-American/dp/019518159X/

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I have to take an oath like this every year as an appointed member of a town board. I bring this book. Everyone else uses a bible.

"A Struggle for Power" by Theodore Draper is a must read for anyone interested in a well referenced book on Revolution. It will have the social aspect you are looking for as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Power-American-Revolution/dp/0679776427

If you liked that then you should read this one. It is about how American privateers played a huge role in the Revolution and kept pissing everyone off and how the French were just sort of like "pirates? what pirates?" All the while harboring American raiding ships in the Caribbean.

It starts out a bit slow but if you stick with it then you will probably find it fascinating.

He mentions Gordan Wood multiple times, and he is most well known for his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Radicalism of the American Revolution. In that book, his thesis is that the American Revolution was truly revolutionary and not just the conservative transference of power from one ruling class to another. I'm about to graduate with a history degree, and if there is any specific period or subject you'd like some info on, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

Sure thing.

I first came across the discussion about the origin on this podcast:
http://www.decodedc.com/154-2/

I also highly recommend reading Joseph Ellis’s book, “The Quartet”, which gives an excellent discussion about the process of how the Constitution came to replace the Articles of Confederation.
https://www.amazon.com/Quartet-Orchestrating-American-Revolution-1783-1789/dp/080417248X

These two sources were the most impactful to me, and there’s been many other sources here and there that have helped fill in between the lines. I live in Richmond, VA, where numerous historical markers show just how big of a deal slave revolts were to the founding society.

I’m currently reading “The Second Ammedment: a Biography” by Michael Waldman.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

A simple recommendation is "A Brilliant Solution" by Carol Berkin https://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727. I would also recommend reading a biography of someone like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Personally I really enjoyed "Becoming Madison" by Michael Signer. It's interesting to hear about the debates that occurred between individuals we consider the "Founding Fathers" and how many of them actually deeply despised each other for much of the 1780s.

Suggested reading

I have no problem with his work being used as a supplement as, I agree, we shouldn't sweep our mistakes under the carpet. As was said by George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

However, to your point on calling him revisionist. Perhaps you are correct that historians, typically weren't actually there so it's technically their version. But, this doesn't mean that facts can be presented more or less accurately or with an intended agenda behind them that distorts. Take the following passage in the beginning of Chapter 4 on the American Revolution. I would argue that it may not be revisionist but it sure is way outside the mainstream and incredibly disingenuous. See Gordon Wood and David McCullough for just 2 historians who I feel present a FAR more accurate portrayal of that time period.

“Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.

When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.”

The article argues that our current political battles go back to the civil war. But I'd say the North / South divide goes back to the very beginning or close to it. If you read 19th century American history [(here's an especially fine book about it)] (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Liberty-History-Republic-1789-1815/dp/0199832463) it's striking how little the arguments about government have changed in America's history.

A beginner may want to start with "Decision at Philadelphia," which is one of the more readably written accounts of the convention, and doesn't sacrifice too much for it. If you want to go more in-depth, find something which contains or at least excerpts James Madison's own notes-- for example, "The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison," which I believe takes the notes themselves and presents them in a somewhat more readable format.

George Washington actually wrote a book on common etiquette. I have a copy in my guest bathroom. Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.

> How long did it take you to research all those quotes?

-- I honestly don't recall. I did it whenever I had free time, or during down time at work. So it was a few hours here and there. Overall, it took about a week and a half. But I'm a bit compulsive in my editing.

> Are there any books I could read that would give me insight into what the founding fathers had in mind for this nation?

-- I wouldn't know, although someone in this thread suggested Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.

Hmm , who be selling GB's book again ?

There appears to be a hilarious name calling war raging over the one star versus five star Amazon.com book reviews , lol !

Mean while back on the New York Times best seller list , it is marked purchased by the pallet load , lmao !

>You live in a federal republic which was specifically established in reaction to a monarchy.

Give The Royalist Revolution a read some time; originally the founders placed their problem with parliament rather than the King, hell, King George was arguably more popular in the American colonies than in his home nation, and it was mostly a few more liberal patriots that made breaking with the British parliament breaking with the King.

Even after the revolution, there was still some idle plots to establish a kingdom in the United States from within the country itself.

However ultimately, the peoples that founded the United States are fading. I'm as close to a WASP without the "P" as one could get, my family settled here on my father's side immediately after the revolution whilst on my mother's side they fought for the colonies. The America of yesteryear, the pan-european republic, is quite simply not going to last under the insanity of leftists and the brown hordes they try to import into this country en masse. It's generally the way of things that as nations grow more "diverse" increasingly autocratic methods are needed to maintain control, I'd rather we save ourselves a lot of bloody civil war and just choose a semi-absolute monarch to rule us now.

This is my favorite:

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244

Another, very predictable one!

https://www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z1QBK7D5EDQXNGWDEABX

This one was surprisingly good, but I read it a long time ago:

https://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Rebels-American-Revolution-Through/dp/0393322939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103441&sr=1-1&keywords=redcoats+%26+rebels+the+american+revolution+through+british+eyes

Basically a kids book but I LOVED it!

https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Courage-Revolutionary-Adventures-Joseph/dp/1444351354/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-3&keywords=plumb+martin

This too! (Actually embarrassing, but again, a GREAT read! Probably totally supports your point as this list grows!)

https://www.amazon.com/Yankee-Doodle-Boy-Adventures-Revolution/dp/082341180X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-4&keywords=plumb+martin

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Revolutionary-Began-Landmark-Books/dp/0375822003/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103676&sr=1-3&keywords=liberty%21

Here's one I started and never finished but was looking very interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103778&sr=1-17&keywords=history+of+the+american+revolution

There is a bunch of competing theories on this, but I recommend checking out Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

A very good read, primarily based off of an analysis of colonial pamphlets and writings. He argues that while the colonists' intellectual history could be traced back to English Common Law and classical antiquity,the main thrust of the colonists' brand of Republicanism came from early eighteenth century English Whig opposition thought, which was also very critical of Parliamentary encroachment and called for the type of Republicanism that was found in the pamphlets circulating around the colonies in the years leading up to the revolution. He also spends some time on colonial conspiracies, when the colonists saw every action by the Crown as a deliberate attempt to take away their liberty, whether that was actually the case or not.

Also, the fact that the Crown essentially left the colonies alone for decades gave the colonies a sense of political and economic freedom that, when threatened after the Seven Years' War, propelled them to push back.

Once the war was won, colonial leaders applied the theories of the past and reformulated them to fit the unique situation in the colonies, and in doing so – creating their own theories concerning sovereignty, representation, and constitutional rights – they created their own revolutionary ideology.

I highly recommend The American Revolution: A History by Gordon S. Wood.

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

I think we should all read Common Sense

> Pre-2008 it wasn't always interpreted the way it is now.

By anti-gun/liberal educators, etc., maybe, however their view was never the norm. If you look at the actual historical record, the intent was quite clearly to protect the individual right to firearms, and there are a great many people who have held that view since it was written. This author does a pretty good job of researching and presenting the historical info.

This. Hamilton preferred an even stronger central government but this was the best he was going to get so he agreed to sign. Technically signing wasn't an endorsement. The last article was carefully written so that the signers were merely witnessing that it had been adopted by the unanimous consent of the states present as opposed to all of the men in each state delegation. This was an attempt to get the dissenters add their names as well.

Miracle at Philadelphia is widely praised and very readable but it is also filiopietistic. It's worth the read but for a fuller understanding of the constitional convention I recommend Decision at Philadlephia.

I've got three books that would be pretty good. If you only read one, I would suggest the last one that I've listed. It focuses on US history after WWII. Not gonna lie, but most people in the US don't seem to care about much from events earlier than, oh, Desert Storm. This will give you a good idea of what has lead up to things more recent.

First is "That's Not in My American History Book" http://www.amazon.com/Thats-Not-American-History-Book/dp/158979107X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406744669&sr=8-1&keywords=thats+not+in+my+history+book

Second is "Lies my Teachers Told Me"
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1406744669&sr=8-2&keywords=thats+not+in+my+history+book

Lastly: American Dreams: The United States Since 1945
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143119559/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Bonus books:
American Revolution:
http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Revolution-History-Chronicles/dp/0812970411/ref=pd_sim_b_14?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QADK50FADAGE3XG7JGE
Civil War:
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Curiosities-Oddities-Coincidences/dp/155853315X/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406745439&sr=1-6&keywords=US+Civil+War+books


Edit: This is a monster looking book, but it is visual as well. (Okay it is a monster book) but it touches on nearly everything. I've used it as a reference multiple times during college and Kurin is fairly spot on with his assessments.

http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonians-History-America-101-Objects/dp/1594205299/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406745533&sr=1-1&keywords=a+smithsonian+book+of+history

A couple of quotes. Would today's conservatives agree?

Thomas Jefferson:
>Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on.

WHAT? No flat tax???

Thomas "Common Sense" Paine: (Agrarian Justice)
>Paine proposed a detailed plan to tax property owners to pay for the needs of the poor, which could be considered as the precursor of the modern idea of citizen's income or basic income. The money would be raised by taxing all direct inheritances at 10%, and "indirect" inheritances - those not going to close relations - at a somewhat higher rate;

Do I remember Glenn Beck writing a book about how GREAT Thomas Paine was?
http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense-Control/dp/1439168571

Honors History degree. I would recommend Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Talks about the change of mindset from the beginning of the revolutionary crisis to after the war.

https://www.amazon.com/Ideological-Origins-American-Revolution/dp/0674443020

If we're doing recommendations I'd like to throw out The Quartet by Joseph Ellis. He did a deep dive on 4 major contributors to The Constitution. What it meant at the time and how difficult it was to even consider. John Jay, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton are explained in detail different things they did help the cause.

Thanks, I actually just ordered it on Kindle, I'll start reading as soon as I have dinner made.

If you have the time, I strongly recommend Paul Revere's Ride as well, it's focused primarily on the events of April 19, 1775, but does a great job spelling out the larger themes that event was borne of, and the motivations of the primary actors. (Also, how stupidly wrong most people get the story)

The North went to war with the South motivated largely by nationalism, not the rights of slaves: it's utterly naive to claim that Lincoln would have let them leave peacefully.

The South was not trying to overthrow the Union, they were trying to leave it.

That's not to say that slavery wasn't a huge rallying cry in the Southern fight, but the Civil War deserves more nuance than your black and white.

Shay's Rebellion was a struggle against a tyrannical and out of touch state government burdening the common people - including veterans - to enrich wealth cronies who speculated in IOU's to veterans that were to be redeemed at par with higher taxes.

Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle covers it well.

Thomas Jefferson's views, and the Declaration of Independence, clearly condone overthrowing a tyrannical government.

>What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-Little-Wisdom/dp/1557091056

A couple good books on the topic if you're further interested: Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection and Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle

Freethinkers: History of American Secularism

Great book. Starts with the role of secular elements in the formation of the US, and then goes on to talk about their role in emanicipation, woman's sufferage, and civil rights.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the topic, but Christopher Hitchens recommended Struggle for Power by Draper in his reddit interview.

Theodore Draper's book A Struggle for Power is a great resource for anyone who wants to delve deeper into this.

Redcoats & Rebels is a wonderful introduction to this fascinating period in history. Hibbert is one of the UK's foremost narrative historians, and this short book gives a decidedly novel (for American eyes) British point of view of the "American Revolution" (or War of Independence, depending upon your point of view).

Highly recommended. Check it out. You'll like it.

EDIT: Corrected silly spelling mistake

Well it did and it didn't. Considering that the US had the most egalitarian government in the world at the time (afaik), that (most) white men could vote was already a huge step. We tend to think of the American revolution as being one of the haute-bourgeosie (especially compared to the petty bourgeoisie of the French revolution), but most Loyalists were explicitly of the old European aristocratic class. The American revolution, then, was arguably one that was more long-term damaging to the ancien regime because, well, it did actually allow those "white landowning men" to vote.

Also, that completely ignores the divisions amongst the founding fathers. There were both radical voices (a la Jefferson) who wanted more devolution to the common man, and nigh-reactionary voices (a la Hamilton) who either wanted an American Monarchy or at the very least a government that was almost wholly separate from the individual.

There's a book I'd recommend on the topic, Gordon Woods' The Radicalism of the American Revolution. It's a little behind the times on the scholarship, but insofar as we have a consensus on how much the American revolution actually moved the needle towards human liberty it's really a lodestar.

Yeah, yeah! There is already a book out that we could promote it with too!

True, but I think the analysis is pretty clear. For example Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby.

Power, Faith and Fantasy is a well-written and very relevant account of American involvement in the mid-east.

Race and Reunion is perhaps more of a cultural text, but it explores the Civil War and its lasting effects on our national identity.

Radicalism of the American Revolution is a great look at that era and the philosophical underpinnings of America.

And there's always Noam Chomsky, who writes illuminating books about past and present American policy.

Here's where you can buy them.

Susan Jacoby wrote a great book on secularism in American history starting with the founding fathers called [ Freethinkers ] ( http://www.amazon.com/Freethinkers-A-History-American-Secularism/dp/0805077766#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1427832238040 )

If you can copy and paste,why can't you use a Ctrl + F function to search for yourself.

Maybe picking this up would be easier for you since you don't seem to have one in your mom's basement with you:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1557091056/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1511821140&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=us+constitution&dpPl=1&dpID=41KtZOa1oOL&ref=plSrch

Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution through British Eyes [Paperback]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393322939/britishbatt04-21

Perhaps Ch 1 in "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" by Susan Jacoby

http://amzn.com/0805077766

Glenn Beck has already tainted that name.

I still can't believe he invoked the name of Thomas Paine, and "common sense" to boot.

I recommend you read Stephen P. Halbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment.

Heck, read any of the 90-odd-pages of citations, any of the personal correspondences of the framers, debate transcripts from the time, newspaper articles, shit just read ANYTHING historical instead of just peeling off more talking points from Maddow or whever you get them.

Come back when you have assembled at least a picogram's worth of intelligent and fact-based historical knowledge instead of regurgitating nonsense in bold like that means anything.