(Part 2) Best us revolution & founding history books according to redditors

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

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.

The First American Revolution, by Ray Raphael (2002)

Basically a woke take on the revolution that's well researched, a brisk 200 pages, and very left-friendly. Between the civil unrest of the Boston Tea Party and the open war of Lexington and Concord was a loose confederation of political movements of separatists, liberal reformists, and radical democratic assemblies. Pretty handy at undermining the religion of American Exceptionalism and institution worship common to neolibs and right wing shitheads alike

Personal note: as an IRL masshole this is a narrative that a lot of old lefties know about because it used to be celebrated and commemorated every fall just like the other parts of the Revolution. Interesting how it fell out of favor only in the last century

>This could be wrong

It is!

The British were no strangers to light infantry tactics, and adapted to fighting in North America. Heavily outnumbered and nearly constantly beyond the range of their supplies, they conducted themselves with gallantry and professionalism and won more than they lost (though they obviously lost a few big battles that counted).

There is an excellent (if dense) book on that subject I would recommend if you like to read about military history:

https://www.amazon.com/Zeal-Bayonets-Only-Campaigns-Commanders/dp/0806141522

As I said in the podcast, I'd be posting a bibliography. You can find a much more extensive one here, but for a briefer one speaking mainly just to the topic of the Podcast, namely dueling in the United States with a focus on political encoutners, here is the limited edition "Greatest Hits" release:

• Ayers, Edward L. & John Mayfield & Todd Hagstette, eds. The Field of Honor: Essays on Southern Character and American Identity. University of South Carolina Press, 2017: Particularly several chapters in “Part II: Honor, Violence, and the Law”, and “Part III: Defining the Man - Honor and Character”.
  
• Bruce, Jr., Dickson D. Violence and Culture in the Antebellum South. University of Texas Press, 1979
  
• Fleming, Thomas J. "Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America": Very lively book and fun to read even if a bit overly "Popish", it focuses specifically on the relationship between Burr and Hamilton in 1803-1804 as they march towards their "interview". Would certainly recommend to anyone looking for a book-length treatment of the duel.
  
• Freeman, Joanne B. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. Yale University Press, 2002: Concerned with a broader look at American politics in the early United States, Freeman devotes part of the book specifically to the Duel and its place within the world of politics at the time. The key chapter on this front can also be found in an earlier version, see below.
  
• Greenberg, Kenneth S. Honor & Slavery: Lies, Duels, Noses, Masks, Dressing as a Woman, Gifts, Strangers, Humanitarianism, Death, Slave Rebellions, the Proslavery Argument, Baseball, Hunting, and Gambling in the Old South. Princeton University Press, 1996: The book is as excellent as its name!
  
• Greene, Evarts B. 1927. “The Code of Honor in Colonial and Revolutionary Times with Special Reference to New England.” Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts 26: 367–89: Old but solid, Greene's article remains heavily cited as one of the "go-to" pieces with regards to the origins of dueling in the United States.
  
• Hopton, Richard. Pistols at Dawn: A History of Duelling: If you are looking for a decently written and researched pop history introduction, this is the book for you! Providing a general overview of the history of the duel in Europe, while it has its small errors and simplifications, all in all, it provides a solid survey for someone who doesn't want to jump into more academic works yet.
  
• Moore, James T. 1975. “The Death of the Duel: The Code Duello in Readjuster Virginia, 1879-1883.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83 (3): 259–78.
  
• Olson, Christopher J. Political Culture and Secession in Mississippi: Masculinity, Honor, and the Antiparty Tradition, 1830-1860. Oxford University Press, 2002 Schneller, Mark G. Invisible Sovereign: Imagining Public Opinion from the Revolution to Reconstruction. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.
  
• Rorabaugh, W J. 1995. “The Political Duel in the Early Republic: Burr v. Hamilton.” Journal of the Early Republic 15 (1): 1–23: A good, concise evaluation of the Burr-Hamilton Duel in political context.
  
• Stevens, William Oliver Pistols at Ten Paces: The Story of the Code of Honor in America. Houghton Mifflin, 1940: While a bit dated, it is an unfortunate fact that solid, book length treatments of dueling in the United States are few and far between. While falling into the common fault of over emphasizing anecdote common to older books on the duel, it nevertheless is a good read.
  
• Steward, Dick. Duels and the Roots of Violence in Missouri. University of Missouri Press, 2000
  
• Stowe, Steven M. Intimacy and Power in the Old South: Ritual in the Lives of the Planters. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
  
• Wells, C.A. Harwell. 2001. “The End of the Affair? Anti-Dueling Laws and Social Norms in Antebellum America.” Vanderbilt Law Review 54 (4): Focused most specifically on dueling, legally, and its decline in the United States.
  
• Williams, Jack K. Dueling in the Old South: Vignettes of Social History. Texas A&M University Press, 1980: A nice, short book that looks at the duel in the American South.
  
• Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South. Oxford University Press, 1983: An (the most?) important work on the study of antebellum culture in the American South, looking at the duel, and the wider society in which it belonged. See also "Honor and Violence in the Old South which is an abridged version focused more on the role of violence specifically in the life of the Southern gentleman.
  
  Also, I haven't listened back through the podcast as like most people it isn't like I can stand hearing my own voice, but off hand as far as error corrections, I know I messed up at least one thing, confusing the date of the Cilley-Graves encounter and placing it in 1826, the year of the Randolph-Clay duel which also touched on Congressional privilege. Cilley-Graves was in fact in 1838. Quite possibly a few other mix-ups in there which I blustered through, but that one at least struck me practically the moment after wrapping up, so thought to point it out.

Edit: I forgot what sub I was in. I should come prepared with better sources first, but I spent too much time writing this to delete it.

My actual source was this book as well as a few history and political science courses. Madison was one of the chief authors of the federalist papers and he spilled the beans about what went on during the convention later in his life (along with Jefferson and Adams), so the public perception of what went on is really biased towards what those people said about it since most other people didn't say much at all, and Madison's account always emphasizes Madison's role as the grand architect. But Madison had also been drafting his ultimate plan for a grand American government using meticulous notes long before anyone started talking about replacing or amending the Articles of Confederation. The plans he went in with did not call for a federal government, though; it called for a national government wherein there were no longer states at all and the president had vast amounts of power. The New Jersey plan, which is said to have been "rejected", was really the impetus to revise Madison's plan into a federal government where the legislative branch would be dominant branch instead of a just a check on the president's power, and where only those powers specifically granted to the federal government (primarily regarding issues of commerce and defense across state lines) were delegated away from the states. Madison's plan already had two branches of congress, so the Senate just sort of became the NJ plan's congress with the House being Madison's idea of a a legislature. To me, that's a very different kind of government than what really was basically an elected king with an ineffectual congress. Although I suppose as the power of the federal government has grown over the years, American federal government really is more of a national government since we've interpreted what is meant by "necessary and proper" and what is "interstate commerce" to such a degree that the supreme court has [almost]
ruled that a federal law prohibiting guns within x feet of an elementary school is considered "interstate commerce".

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

So I mainly do 18th century history, particularly French and Indian War and the American War for Independence. Some of the earlier and later periods may be similar in approach but I'm sure there are some differences. This is a sort of quick answer.

The name of the game was discipline. When not marching on or on fatigue, NCOs and officers drilled the soldiers. After sometime of steady training, the manual of exercise (your loading, firing, and marching procedures) would become second nature. You also have to keep in mind that the sergeants were there to keep the men in line and in order. If a soldier fell, someone would simply close ranks and fill in that gap. Desertion from battle likely meant your own death by your superiors.


Maintaining discipline could make or break an army in battle. At the battle of Camden during the American War for Independence, the fresh Virginia and North Carolina militia broke and routed to a bayonet charge from the British 33rd. The line collapsed from there on and Gates lost the battle.

Also keep in mind that line warfare was not quite as deadly as might be depicted in movies or games. Yes, they are firing massive walls of lead down at the other poor bastards on the other side, but you're not going to see a whole regiment get obliterated in a single volley unless they're super up close. A line would be firing somewhere between 50-80 yards away. Any closer will becoming closing distance for a bayonet. Here's a nifty blog detailing some of the casualties from mid-eighteenth century battles. It is well written and researched, done by a graduate student I believe, who also does wargaming and reenacting. Anyway, the main goal wasn't to annihilate the other army but break them. Hammer them down, lower their morale, and then when they're faltering you run then down with cavalry or bayonet.

During the AWI both armies fought a bit differently than the tactics seen on the European continent. The British adopted light infantry style tactics. The open order meant more space in between each soldier and lessened the amount of casualties. Matthew Spring's With Zeal and Bayonets Only describes this adaptation. Light infantry fighting was faster and more mobile. You'd skirmish and harass the enemy line and then move back. There are also accounts of soldiers laying on their arms, sort of ducking for cover like you mentioned.

As suicidal as it might look to us, military tacticians back then were no idiots. They had a method to their madness. Linear warfare was the best way to operate armies of musketmen. It allowed for orderly marching and placement of troops. Having soldiers march and fire like clockwork made for optimal fighting as it allowed officers to move regiments and companies about as needed while keeping order. The formations also allowed the big numbers to act as not only protection from cavalry but also the ability to fire mass volleys instead of peppering with independent firing. A British soldier optimally could load and fire around 3 times a minute. It is a fairly long process to load and fire, and combine that with minutes of battle and smoke, it is not going to be devastating.

I hope this helps to answer your question. What exactly went on in the minds of soldiers at that time we can only guess. They were expected to be disciplined but of course, that isn't always the case. They were humans, not robots.

If it is any credit, I do AWI reenacting and study this time period. Currently a grad student.

Some sources and books that might be of interest:

Don Hagist: British Soldiers, American War

Matthew Spring: With Zeal and With Bayonets Only

You might also want to check out the journals of Joseph Plumb Martin and Roger Lamb. They're firsthand accounts from soldiers during the AWI and really informative of the lives of soldiers.

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

Because 10,000 voices can be silenced by 100 guns. America's militia (i.e. every able bodied male 16 and up) was intended by the founders to be America's first line of defense against all threats foreign and domestic, and that means that military grade hardware was intended for the citizenry. I highly recommend picking up a copy of the "The Founders Second Amendment". The author is a highly respected lawyer who's argued before SCOTUS, and was one of only 2 authors sited by the SCOTUS in the Heller decision. The founders believed that having a standing army except in times of war was the very definition of tryany.

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Origins-Right/dp/1566637929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318971096&sr=8-1

> Thomas Jefferson, (...) was, in Denise Spellberg’s words, “the first in the history of American politics to suffer the false charge of being a Muslim, an accusation considered the ultimate Protestant slur in the eighteenth century.”



Previously:

Thomas Jefferson’s Quran: How Islam Shaped the Founders - What role did Islam have in shaping the Founders' views on religion? A new book argues that to understand the debate over church and state, we need to look to their views on Muslims, writes R.B. Bernstein.





Amazon link

Because it was a lot better than the alternative. If you want to know more about the Constitutional Convention in general as well as the various founding fathers' opinions regarding it, then read Miracle at Philadelphia.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Declaration-Independence-Articles-Confederation/dp/1604592680

A fantastic, kind of dystopian read by this guy named Tom Jefferson.

So what's interesting is that what Akhil Reed Amar says about Madison isn't a quote. He's paraphrasing Madison's fears over a weaker Virginia presence in a popular vote -- which is true. No one is disputing that. Even the author of the Tenth Amendment Center article you cite references that. But my argument is that slavery was not the main reason the south wanted the electoral college. In fact, many northerners wanted the electoral college too!

Here's where my historian warning alarm went off when I was reading the Vox Article:

>Then there's the theory that the framers really didn't believe in democracy. But they put the Constitution to a vote, they created a House of Representatives that was directly elected, they believed in direct election of governors, and there are all sorts of other democratic features in the Constitution. So that theory isn't so explanatory.

The fact that he doesn't acknowledge that the Constitution was created to limit democracy proves that he is unfamiliar with the recent historiographical conversations of the last 15 years. Here is why I believe this. Unruly Americans and the origins of the Constitution by Woody Holton, Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution both clearly (and effectively) argue that that the Constitution was created, in part, due to the Founders' fears over unchecked Democracy happening at the state level. Similarly, The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776- 1790 by E. James Ferguson doesn't directly argue this point, but supports it by showing that it was the opinion of many of the founders that the national government was struggling primarily because of the democratic power in the states. Unruly Americans and Taming Democracy are highly praised books (as evident by their many positive reviews in academic journals) because of their effective arguments. The fact that he dismisses their arguments tells me that he's either being disingenuous or simply uninformed of the current historical discussions on this topic. But I don't condemn him for not being entirely up to date with the literature.

He's not a historian, he's a lawyer. He knows how and why the constitution should be interpreted, but he is not as fully versed on the historical method. He likely hasn't spent as much time digging into the bitterness, squabbles, and endless infighting that caused the US Constitution to come about the way that it did, as a historian would. (Likewise, he knows more about it's interpretation than historians would!) And again, I'm not saying he's entirely wrong. He's right that people like Madison saw this situation as a bonus -- but there's no way that it was the main reason. Slavery was a factor, just not the factor. Folks like Alexander Hamilton truly feared Virginian power, and if he saw it as a way of truly empowering the south, he would not have been one of the biggest proponents of the electoral college. For me, Amer's argument just doesn't work.

Tl;Dr: The professor in the Vox article isn't a historian, he's a lawyer who isn't trained like a historian. The fact that he seems unaware of the major interpretations of the history of constitution over the last decade suggests he's not as informed as historians would be on this matter.

Edit: please let me know if this makes sense? I realized it's kind of a long rant.

Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution is a fantastic play-by-play of the Constitutional Convention and really clarifies just how fragile the Union actually was at that point.

Madison and Jefferson in which I sensed a lot of love and admiration for the two key figures on the part of the authors, but the history is definitely there as well.

Oh, I've got some good books in this category. I took an Anglo-American Constitutionalism class during undergrad, which had some great readings on the American Constitution.

Plain Honest Men by Richard Beeman

Creation of the American Republic by Gordon Wood

Peripheries and Center by Jack P. Greene

The last two are awesome, awesome books that really changed the way I thought about early America and the creation of the Constitution.

As a future social studies educator, my other suggestion would be to find a history teacher at your school who is really passionate about the subject and ask them about what they read and how they read. One of the most important things in learning about history is how to read history correctly. Or, if a university is near by, e-mail professors who study a topic that you're interested in and see if you can correspond with them or talk to them. They may lend you free books, too!

Definitely. Check out this lecture by historian Joanna Freeman on her famous book "affairs of honor" which gives a fascinating perspective into the culture of honor dueling in America.

I'd recommend starting with Solomon's Builders by Christopher Hodapp. Founding Fathers, Secret Societies by Dr. Robert Hieronimus would be a good followup.

If you really want to delve into the older history, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590 to 1710 by David Stevenson is your best bet.

If you really want to understand the secrecy angle - read The Craft Of Intelligence by Allen Dulles, It's not about Freemasonry, but the tools and tactics are the same. Secret Societies and the Intel Community have a lot in common.

I wouldn't recommend that book. If you'd like a factual, well-researched look at the masonic significance of the District, I'd recommend Solomon's Builders by Chris Hodapp (who also wrote Freemasons for Dummies). I can't comment on the DVD, since the link was broken.

I was expecting something more along these lines.

> https://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Blueprint-Federalist-Constitution-Democracy/dp/0465018238/

awesome, adding to the queue. thank you!

If you'd really like to learn about Federalism in the U.S. and the Federalist vs. anti-federalist debate that he talked about.

You might consider how the original intent of the drafters may have been shaped by their recognition that the future of America required aggressive westward expansion. That thought came to me after reading The Quartet, which describes how and why Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay "conspired" to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation.

Good luck!

Adding to your answer, it was 20 years untouchable. But totally necessary to the ratification of the constitution. If it was going to be passed, the southern states had to agree. No way they were gonna do that with slavery off the table. It was a political move, arguably morally grey, that lead to this.

this book is a good read if you re interested.

Actually, the reverse is true. You can't go to war on a concept.

Speaking of books you probably haven't read, pick up 1984 so you can have at least some understanding of:

1. Perpetual war
   
2. As a practice for controlling a population
   
   Another book which would really help you out is A Documentary History of The United States. Then get Founding Brothers so you'll have an idea of the personal character of some of the most important Founding Fathers.
   
   When you're done with those three, reread your constitution and then pick up some correspondence by Jefferson, Washington and Adams. Finally, go back to where this whole thing started with Thomas Paine.
   
   After you've read all of those things and received a basic education in the origins of our legal system and the intentions of our Founding Fathers, maybe you could come back and say something:
   
   
3. Relevant
   
4. Coherent
   
5. With a basis in fact
   
   But, if you want to continue spouting this asinine shit that keeps pouring out of your mouth like a chocolate fountain, feel free. For now, you are still legally protected in doing so.

Collected Writings of Thomas Paine, On the Geneology of Morals, Prejudices: The Complete Series, and Arguably

>The first link you posted is merely a PDF document from the CIA reporting on Syria.

Ha, I thought this was sarcasm, then you went on and made the most retarded argument about how official documents arent evidence because of their size (this document in particular is 28 pages). Good luck using that one in court.

What the fuck do you think intelligence agencies do? The Art of War is from 5th century BC. People have been mastering this craft for over a thousand years. Theres institutes dedicated only to writing up new ideas, from overthrowing governments to you-fucking-name-it, using memetics for population control

If a bank has been robbed, and in my bookcase, you find the plans to rob that bank in particular, no mather how old those plans are, or how thick the plan is, it is reason for suspicion to say the least. In the case of EU/USA deliberatly creating ISIS, not just this document but papertrails, pictures, emails have been released. You're just waiting for the unbiased truthspeakers CNN to cover it.

About books, here's one, go ahead and read up what the founding fathers wrote on criminal governments and militia. Or read this book about the CIA using 'Economic Hitmen'.

Or see what information has come up thanks to the Freedom of Information act..

Tell your mom to buy you this for Christmas. It's a shame you haven't read it before https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-Declaration-Independence/dp/1631581481/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CE3Z8NMVB4NGJXF1G1AZ

I would agree, and I think what has become is an increasing awareness that elements of the government in the US are vehemently opposed to constitutional processes. While - for a while, they were able to operate "closer to the surface" of open policy and activity, now we don't even here about processes or programs. We just see a massive data center go up here, or there and without a clue why? But this is not conspiracy crap, maybe NSA is doing some worthwhile shit , but as a citizen I have no clue about that, and maybe I don't even want one.

But at the ground level, I have a major problem with the public representatives , cops, congressmen and similar becoming increasingly dismissive of even basic civility and civics.

In this way, I think that my perception is well founded. By way of example I would say, when you look across the "left/right" spectrum we are encouraged to frame everything in, the "Oath Keepers" at the end of the day - have FAR, FAR more in common with hackers, people concerned about civil rights than might at first be considered obvious. But freedom and respect for laws are principles that most of these institutions would hold as self evident.

I don't think that most of these institutions or core constituencies are particularly consistent in their thinking or policies, and they may not even think of themselves as proper organizations but rather as loose citizens groups.

I suspect further that unless and until , we stop watching MTV, worrying about our Cold Stone Creamery flavors and really decide to "man up" (no offense meant) as a nation and realize we are STILL entitled to participate in our electoral process, we stand to watch our republic and our prospects for mass-prosperity falter.

I really do like the way Richard Dreyfuss put it here, so I would strongly encourage my fellow citizens, to stand back from the militarist abyss of violence and choose something better, do the hard work of getting informed, skill up legally, learn of the ghosts that haunt us and get involved, and turning the ship of state as we the people see fit.

In addition to the Constitution read the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers In Modern Language: Indexed for Today's Political Issues is a pretty good book. Reading the original papers is fine, but the language is a little harder to understand. Especially Hamilton. He was rather wordy among other things. Speaking of Hamilton - Hamilton's Curse is a good short read.

This book also takes a contrarian view on the subject.

OP: On a related note, I might recommend a book called "Iron Tears"- it covers the American revolution from the perspective of officials in London rather than the colonists (as is usual). Given how the topic isn't taught much in the UK, I think Britons might get something out of it as well: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Tears-Americas-Britains-1775-1783/dp/0743226879

Liberty's Blueprint by: Michael Meyerson
https://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Blueprint-Federalist-Constitution-Democracy/dp/0465018238/

It was really the book that opened my eyes.

I would suggest you check out this book for another view.

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jeffersons-Quran-Islam-Founders/dp/0307268225/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393884159&sr=1-1&keywords=jefferson%27s+quran

It talks about the founding fathers laying the framework for religious inclusion but not endorsement by the federal government.

For anyone who's interested in a contemporary view of the American Revolution from a British perspective, I thoroughly recommend Those Damned Rebels by Michael Pearson.

It's exclusively from the contemporary British point of view, which is why I find it a little amusing that the quote on the front is from American Heritage saying "this is the way history ought to be written."

It wasn't videotaped but there's a good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Plain-Honest-Men-American-Constitution/dp/1400139856
It' short, easy to read, and details the constitutional convention day by day, from notes taken by attendees, pricipally James Madison.

If you are seriously curious, then you should not be reading Reddit. You should be reading The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.

It is available on Amazon for $7.28 and contains a complete explanation of why our founding fathers rejected a popular vote in favor of the Electoral College system.

> just like America was 200 years ago.

You mean like during the Whiskey Rebellion? The United States has never been a place of liberty without aggression. Many Founding Fathers were intentionally aggressive. Think about the Quartet, for example.