Tag Archives: American Revolution

The Founders’ Classical Education: Why Washington, Adams, and Jefferson Studied Ancient Rome and Greece

Posted on by

January and February – Seeds of Rebellion Part Five

When George Washington resigned his military commission in 1783, Congress was stunned. Victorious generals didn’t surrender power – they seized it. But Washington had spent the war years rereading Plutarch’s account of Cincinnatus, the Roman general who saved the republic then returned to his plow. As Thomas E. Ricks reveals in First Principles: What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans (2020), this wasn’t theatrical posturing. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson waged the Revolution with ancient texts as their strategic guides, making decisions based on 2,000-year-old lessons about power, tyranny, and republican survival.

The Journalist as Classical Scholar

Thomas E. Ricks brings an unusual pedigree to this subject. A Pulitzer Prize-winning military correspondent and author of definitive works on the Iraq War, Ricks might seem an unlikely guide to Plutarch and Cato. But his Pentagon reporting revealed how often generals invoke ancient precedents, leading him to ask: What did the Founders – who led an actual revolution – learn from classical texts about war and governance?

Ricks spent years retracing the classical education of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson during the revolutionary period. The result treats them not as marble statues but as serious students working through difficult questions: How do republics survive military crisis? When does resistance become justified? How do you prevent revolution from devouring itself? For answers, they turned to Greek and Roman history.

The Central Argument: Revolution as Classical Seminar

Ricks’s thesis challenges popular understanding of 1775-1784. The Revolution wasn’t primarily about Enlightenment abstraction or tax grievances – it was about applying ancient lessons to avoid the fate of failed republics. As Ricks writes, “Washington, Adams, and Jefferson saw themselves reenacting an ancient drama. They knew how it usually ended: in chaos, then tyranny. Their challenge was to write a different final act.”

Each leader engaged classical texts differently, shaping their revolutionary roles. Washington modeled himself on Roman military virtue – disciplined, self-denying, subordinate to civilian authority. Adams, immersed in Thucydides and Polybius, saw the Revolution through the lens of Greek political philosophy, obsessing over how to channel popular energy without descending into Athenian mob rule. Jefferson read Tacitus and Sallust as case studies in how republics decay, becoming convinced that British corruption mirrored Rome’s decline.

The book’s power lies in showing how revolutionary decisions emerged from classical precedents. Washington’s refusal to become military dictator despite his army’s desperate condition? A conscious rejection of Caesar’s path. Adams’s insistence on legal trials for British soldiers after the Boston Massacre? An application of Roman republican law over mob justice. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence? Structured like a Roman Senate oration justifying war.

Memorable Passages: The Founders in Their Own Words

Ricks excels at letting primary sources speak. Here’s John Adams in 1776, explaining why he opposed immediate independence: “I have read Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War twenty times. Athens rushed to war against Sparta in democratic fervor, then collapsed into civil strife and tyranny. We must not declare independence until we have established governments capable of restraining popular passion.”

Washington’s letters reveal a man consciously performing a Roman role. Writing to Congress in 1783 after refusing calls to make himself king: “I cannot accept what Cincinnatus would have refused. The history of Rome teaches that the moment a general becomes perpetual is the moment the republic dies. I will resign this commission because Roman virtue demands it, and because I know what follows if I do not.” This wasn’t false modesty – it was strategic application of classical precedent.

Jefferson’s Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774) frames colonial grievances in explicitly Roman terms: “Our ancestors left Britain as free men, just as Roman citizens colonized distant provinces. They carried with them the rights of Romans. George III has violated these ancient liberties as Tarquin violated the Roman constitution. When kings become tyrants, citizens have the right – the duty – to expel them.” For Jefferson, 1776 was 509 BC redux.

Dialogue with Revolutionary Historiography

First Principles challenges works like Gordon Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991), which emphasizes democratic ideology, and Pauline Maier’s American Scripture (1997), which stresses Enlightenment influence. Ricks doesn’t deny these factors but argues they’ve overshadowed the classical framework that structured revolutionary thinking.

The book converges with Caroline Winterer’s The Culture of Classicism (2002) in documenting how Greek and Latin saturated elite education. But Ricks shows this wasn’t ornamental – when Washington, Adams, and Jefferson debated strategy in 1775-1784, they argued through classical examples. Should Congress control the army? Polybius says civilian authority preserves republics. Should states or Congress hold power? Greek confederacies failed through weakness; Rome succeeded through central military command but fell to imperial ambition.

Most provocatively, Ricks reveals how slavery shaped revolutionary classicism. Jefferson knew that both Athens and Rome were slave societies where liberty for citizens coexisted with bondage for others. His classical education didn’t challenge slavery – it rationalized it as compatible with republican virtue, a parallel that works like Annette Gordon-Reed’s The Hemingses of Monticello (2008) make deeply disturbing.

Historical Reassessment: What We’ve Learned Since 2020

Published just before January 6th, First Principles reads differently after watching crowds storm the Capitol. Ricks emphasized that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson feared demagoguery and mob violence above all – the forces that destroyed Athens and Rome. They designed American government to channel popular will through institutions specifically to prevent revolutionary fervor from becoming permanent chaos.

Recent scholarship confirms Ricks’s portrait of anxious revolutionaries. Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence (2017) reveals how violence during 1775-1784 terrified leaders who’d read Thucydides on civil war’s brutality. They succeeded in maintaining civilian control and legal procedure partly because classical texts provided a script for avoiding revolutionary excess.

However, critics note what Ricks underplays: these three men were slaveholding Virginia planters and Massachusetts elites whose classical education reinforced their class position. Mary Beth Norton’s 1774 (2020) shows how ordinary Americans experienced revolution differently than classically-educated leaders. The Greek and Roman texts that guided Washington, Adams, and Jefferson assumed that only property-owning men could exercise citizenship – a premise they never questioned.

Why Read This in 2026?

As debates rage over executive power, states’ rights, and constitutional legitimacy, First Principles reveals that these arguments began during 1775-1784, framed by classical precedent. When Washington refused dictatorial power, when Adams insisted on institutional restraint, when Jefferson justified revolution through Roman examples, they established patterns still shaping American politics.

Ricks makes the revolutionary generation legible as intellectuals wrestling with hard problems, not demigods or hypocrites. They’d studied every republic that ever existed and knew all had failed through military coup, mob rule, or imperial ambition. Between 1775 and 1784, they tried to avoid those fates by consciously applying – and sometimes misapplying – ancient lessons.

For readers in 2026, the book’s value is both historical and urgent: it explains how three classically-educated leaders navigated the most dangerous years of the American experiment. They saw themselves as actors in an ancient drama, trying to reach the ending where the republic survives. Whether their classical education helped or hindered remains our question to answer.

A Note on This Series

This journey through Revolutionary history is as much about the evolution of historical understanding as the Revolution itself. History isn’t static – each generation reinterprets the past through its own concerns, asking different questions and prioritizing different sources. By reading these books in dialogue across 250 years, we’ll witness how scholarship evolves, how narratives get challenged, and how forgotten stories resurface.

This isn’t about declaring one interpretation “right” and another “wrong,” but appreciating the richness that emerges when multiple perspectives illuminate the same transformative moment. These books won’t provide definitive answers – history rarely does – but they equip us to think more clearly about how real people facing genuine uncertainty chose independence, how ideas had consequences, and how the work of creating a more perfect union continues. As we mark this anniversary, we honor the Revolutionary generation by reading deeply, thinking critically, and engaging seriously with both the brilliance and blind spots of what they created.


You can find the entire series listing here.

The Revolutionary Ideas That Built America – And Still Haunt It

Posted on by

January and February – Seeds of Rebellion Part Four

What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies, ought to be consulted during that period to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of Parliament over the colonies. – John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 1815

When Americans argue today about government overreach, executive power, or the nature of liberty itself, they’re replaying a script written in the 1760s and 1770s. Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, first published in 1967, reveals something most of us never learned in school: the American Revolution wasn’t primarily about taxes or tea. It was about ideas – specifically, a coherent worldview about power, corruption, and the fragility of freedom that made independence seem not just desirable but absolutely necessary.

Reading Bailyn’s masterwork today feels unsettlingly contemporary. His revolutionaries obsessed over concentrated power, feared conspiracies against liberty, and believed a corrupt establishment was systematically undermining constitutional rights. Sound familiar? Understanding the intellectual framework that drove America’s founding becomes essential when those same concepts – often stripped of context – fuel our current political fires.

The Historian Who Changed How We Read Revolution

Bernard Bailyn, a Harvard historian who would win the Pulitzer Prize for this book, didn’t set out to write a conventional narrative of battles and heroes. Instead, he did something more radical: he actually read what ordinary colonists were reading. Diving into hundreds of pamphlets, sermons, and newspapers from the revolutionary era – sources historians had largely dismissed as propaganda – Bailyn discovered a sophisticated political ideology that had been hiding in plain sight.

Writing in the 1960s, during America’s own era of upheaval, Bailyn brought the precision of intellectual history to a moment often treated as inevitable march toward democracy. His timing mattered. As Americans questioned authority during Vietnam and the civil rights movement, Bailyn showed that the founders themselves were deeply skeptical of power, animated by ideas rather than merely economic grievances. This reframing transformed revolutionary scholarship and sparked decades of debate about what truly motivated America’s break with Britain.

Power Corrupts, Vigilance Protects: The Revolutionary Mindset

Bailyn’s central argument revolutionized our understanding of 1776. The colonists, he demonstrates, weren’t simply reacting to British policies they disliked. They had absorbed a specific tradition of political thought – what he calls “opposition ideology” – that taught them to interpret those policies as part of a deliberate plot to destroy their liberties.

This ideology emerged from several sources: classical writers like Cicero and Tacitus on republics and tyranny, Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke on natural rights and government by consent, English common law traditions, New England Puritanism’s emphasis on covenant and resistance to arbitrary authority, and especially the “radical Whig” writers of early eighteenth-century England who warned constantly about corruption and the abuse of power.

The last source proved most important. Writers like John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon (authors of Cato’s Letters) and the historian Catharine Macaulay weren’t mainstream voices in Britain, but they became gospel in America. They taught colonists a particular way of seeing politics: power constantly seeks to expand itself, those in authority inevitably become corrupted, liberty requires eternal vigilance, and seemingly small encroachments are actually part of larger conspiracies.

When Britain began tightening control after the Seven Years’ War – taxing the colonies, quartering troops, expanding vice-admiralty courts – Americans didn’t see practical adjustments to imperial administration. They saw confirmation of everything their reading had warned them about: a “systematic” plot to reduce them to slavery. Bailyn writes that the colonists believed they were witnessing “a comprehensive conspiracy against liberty throughout the English-speaking world – a conspiracy believed to have been nourished in corruption, and of which, it was felt, oppression in America was only the most immediately visible part.”

This wasn’t paranoia or exaggeration to Bailyn’s revolutionaries. Given their ideological framework, the pattern seemed clear and terrifying. The Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, the closure of Boston Harbor – each new measure fit perfectly into a template that predicted exactly this kind of creeping tyranny.

Voices From the Revolution

Bailyn lets the revolutionaries speak for themselves, and their words crackle with urgency. He quotes a 1768 letter describing how Americans understood their predicament: “The ministry have formed a systematick [sic] plan of reducing the northern colonies to absolute obedience to acts of Parliament… and if submitted to must end in the ruin of the colonies.” Notice the word “systematick” – not random policies but a coherent plan.

From the influential pamphleteer John Dickinson, Bailyn draws this passage about how tyranny arrives: “Nothing is wanted at home but a PRECEDENT, the force of which shall be established by the tacit submission of the colonies.” Rights, once surrendered, would never be recovered.

Perhaps most tellingly, Bailyn quotes the revolutionaries’ conviction that they weren’t radicals but conservatives, defending traditional British liberties against innovation and corruption. One writer proclaimed: “What do we want? Is it to be wantonly tearing up the foundation of our happy constitution? No. It is the preservation of it.” In their own minds, the British were the revolutionaries, destroying an ancient constitutional balance, while Americans defended eternal principles.

Bailyn also captures the religious dimension of revolutionary thought, quoting a Massachusetts election sermon that presented resistance as a sacred duty: “All the great Assertors of Liberty in all Ages have uniformly declared it to be unalienable.” Liberty came from God, not kings, and defending it became a moral imperative.

A New Interpretation Among Competing Narratives

Bailyn’s book entered a crowded field of revolutionary scholarship, and its ideological approach offered a distinct alternative to existing interpretations. The Progressive historians of the early twentieth century, particularly Carl Becker and Charles Beard, had emphasized economic motivations – class conflict, merchants protecting their interests, a revolution driven by “who shall rule at home” as much as home rule itself.

Bailyn didn’t deny economic factors but insisted they weren’t primary. Ideas mattered independently, shaping how colonists understood their material interests. Where Beard saw merchants manipulating ideology to serve their pocketbooks, Bailyn saw genuine believers whose worldview made certain policies intolerable regardless of their economic impact.

His work also complicated the consensus school of the 1950s, which portrayed Americans as fundamentally pragmatic and unideological. Bailyn showed revolutionaries possessed a sophisticated, coherent political theory that went far beyond pragmatic adjustment of interests.

More recently, Gordon Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution extended Bailyn’s insights, arguing that the ideas Bailyn identified ultimately transformed American society more thoroughly than anyone intended, destroying aristocratic assumptions and creating genuinely democratic culture. Where Bailyn focused on the ideas that justified revolution, Wood traced how those ideas reshaped American life afterward.

Meanwhile, historians emphasizing social history and lived experience – like Gary Nash’s work on urban radicalism or Woody Holton’s research on how debt and economic pressures motivated backcountry farmers – provide necessary texture to Bailyn’s intellectual history. They remind us that while elite pamphleteers articulated opposition ideology, ordinary Americans had their own immediate grievances. The most complete picture likely combines Bailyn’s ideological framework with attention to how different groups experienced and deployed those ideas based on their particular circumstances.

What We’ve Learned Since 1967

Nearly sixty years after publication, scholarship has both confirmed and complicated Bailyn’s thesis. Research into the Atlantic world has shown how ideas circulated more complexly than Bailyn suggested, with influences running in multiple directions. Work on enslaved people and Native Americans has revealed how selectively revolutionary principles were applied – the ideology of liberty coexisted with slavery and dispossession, a tension Bailyn acknowledged but didn’t fully explore.

Historians have also questioned whether the conspiracy mindset was quite as coherent or universal as Bailyn suggested. Recent scholarship shows more variation in revolutionary thought across regions, classes, and religious communities. Not everyone read the same pamphlets or interpreted events through identical ideological lenses.

Yet Bailyn’s core insight endures: ideas genuinely mattered to the revolutionaries, and understanding their worldview is essential to understanding their actions. The challenge has been integrating his intellectual history with social, economic, and cultural approaches that illuminate how diverse Americans experienced revolution differently.

Perhaps most importantly, historians now better understand how revolutionary ideology’s emphasis on vigilance against power, fear of corruption, and suspicion of conspiracy became permanent features of American political culture – for better and worse. Bailyn identified the intellectual origins not just of revolution but of persistent American patterns: questioning authority, fearing centralized power, seeing politics in conspiratorial terms.

Why Read Bailyn in 2026?

In our current moment of polarization and institutional mistrust, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution offers essential perspective. When Americans across the political spectrum invoke founding principles, Bailyn helps us understand what those principles actually meant in their original context and how they functioned politically.

The book reveals that American political culture’s conspiratorial thinking, its suspicion of power, its emphasis on individual liberty against collective authority – these aren’t aberrations but features present from the beginning. Understanding this doesn’t resolve our debates, but it illuminates why we debate the way we do.

For anyone trying to understand why Americans talk about politics differently than citizens of other democracies, why we’re so suspicious of government power, why constitutional arguments dominate our political discourse, Bailyn provides the intellectual archaeology. The revolutionaries weren’t just our political ancestors; their ideology remains the grammar of American political argument.

The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is dense but rewarding, written with clarity and packed with insight. It asks us to take ideas seriously – to consider that people really do act on political principles, not just material interests dressed up as principles. In our cynical age, that might be Bailyn’s most revolutionary suggestion of all.


A Note on This Series

This journey through Revolutionary history is as much about the evolution of historical understanding as the Revolution itself. History isn’t static – each generation reinterprets the past through its own concerns, asking different questions and prioritizing different sources. By reading these books in dialogue across 250 years, we’ll witness how scholarship evolves, how narratives get challenged, and how forgotten stories resurface.

This isn’t about declaring one interpretation “right” and another “wrong,” but appreciating the richness that emerges when multiple perspectives illuminate the same transformative moment. These books won’t provide definitive answers – history rarely does – but they equip us to think more clearly about how real people facing genuine uncertainty chose independence, how ideas had consequences, and how the work of creating a more perfect union continues. As we mark this anniversary, we honor the Revolutionary generation by reading deeply, thinking critically, and engaging seriously with both the brilliance and blind spots of what they created.

You can find the entire series listing here.

The Birth of Rebellion: North Carolina’s Revolutionary Spirit in the 1700s

Posted on by

January and February – Seeds of Rebellion Part Three

From colony-wide to county-wide, the seeds of rebellion had been planted and were beginning to sprout…

The Birth of Rebellion: North Carolina’s Revolutionary Spirit in the 1700s

In the Carolina backcountry of the 1770s, far from the established colonial centers of Boston and Philadelphia, a revolutionary fire was kindling that would challenge the traditional narrative of American independence. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, became an unlikely crucible for patriot sentiment, where Scots-Irish settlers, Presbyterian ministers, and frontier farmers forged a distinctly Southern brand of resistance to British authority. Understanding how this remote region developed such fierce independence requires examining the unique cultural, religious, and political factors that transformed loyal colonial subjects into America’s earliest self-proclaimed revolutionaries.

The Scots-Irish Legacy: Seeds of Defiance

The foundation of Mecklenburg County’s patriot mindset was laid long before the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord. The region’s predominant settlers were Scots-Irish Presbyterians who brought with them a bitter legacy of religious persecution and political marginalization. These immigrants had already endured discrimination in both Scotland and Ireland, where their Presbyterian faith marked them as outsiders in Anglican-dominated societies. As historian Alan Taylor notes in American Colonies, the Scots-Irish carried “a fierce independence and distrust of distant authority” that would prove combustible when transplanted to the Carolina frontier.

This cultural inheritance was not merely abstract resentment. The Scots-Irish settlers had concrete experience with oppressive governance, making them particularly sensitive to perceived injustices from the British Crown. When they established communities in the North Carolina backcountry during the mid-1700s, they brought these memories with them, creating a population predisposed to question and resist overreach by distant powers. Their Presbyterian church structure, which emphasized congregational governance rather than hierarchical authority, reinforced democratic ideals and collective decision-making that would later characterize their revolutionary activities.

Religious Grievances and Colonial Betrayal

The transformation from grievance to open resistance accelerated when the British Privy Council in London dealt Mecklenburg’s settlers a stinging betrayal. After supporting Royal Governor William Tryon against the Regulator movement in 1771 – a costly decision that pitted backcountry settlers against each other – the Scots-Irish Presbyterians of Mecklenburg expected recognition and reward for their loyalty. Instead, the British government voided colonial legislation that had granted them crucial rights: the establishment of Queen’s College (which would have provided local higher education) and the legal authority for their ministers to perform marriages.

This duplicity struck at the heart of the community’s identity. Education and religious legitimacy were not peripheral concerns but foundational elements of Scots-Irish Presbyterian culture. The revocation represented more than administrative inconvenience; it was a profound insult that confirmed their suspicions about British indifference to colonial needs and rights. As Scott Syfert documents in The First American Declaration of Independence, this betrayal “further alienated the community from British rule” and provided tangible evidence that loyalty to the Crown would never be reciprocated with genuine respect or representation.

The Princeton Connection: Intellectual Foundations

While cultural predisposition and political grievances created the emotional fuel for rebellion, intellectual justification came from an unexpected source: the College of New Jersey at Princeton. Several key figures in Mecklenburg County’s revolutionary leadership had studied at Princeton, including members of the prominent Alexander family. The college, under Presbyterian leadership, was a hotbed of Enlightenment thinking blended with Reformed theology, producing graduates who could articulate sophisticated arguments for natural rights and limited government.

John McKnitt Alexander, whose plantation “Alexandriana” became a focal point for revolutionary organizing, exemplified this synthesis of frontier practicality and learned discourse. As depicted in LeGette Blythe’s historical novel Alexandriana, the Alexander home served as more than a prosperous plantation; it functioned as an intellectual hub where ideas about liberty, self-governance, and resistance to tyranny were debated alongside practical strategies for colonial defense. The Princeton-educated ministers and landowners of Mecklenburg could justify their rebellion not merely as frontier defiance but as a principled stand grounded in political philosophy and moral conviction.

From Tension to Declaration: The May 1775 Moment

By the spring of 1775, Mecklenburg County had become a powder keg of revolutionary sentiment. When news of the battles at Lexington and Concord reached Charlotte in May, it provided the spark needed to ignite open rebellion. According to historical accounts – though disputed by some scholars – Colonel Thomas Polk summoned militia representatives to the Charlotte courthouse on May 19, 1775. The gathering elected Abraham Alexander as chairman and John McKnitt Alexander as secretary, then drafted what would become known as the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

The language of this declaration was uncompromising. The assembled representatives allegedly resolved that they would “dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother Country” and proclaimed themselves “free and independent” from British rule – fourteen months before the Continental Congress would adopt similar language in Philadelphia. Whether this specific document existed in the form tradition claims remains debated among historians. However, the indisputable historical record shows that Mecklenburg County did produce the Mecklenburg Resolves on May 31, 1775, which called for local self-governance and rejected Crown authority in practical terms.

David Fleming’s investigation in Who’s Your Founding Father? argues compellingly that the distinction between these two documents may be less significant than commonly assumed. Both reflected the same revolutionary spirit, and the later destruction of county records in an 1800 fire created ambiguity that historians have exploited. What matters historically is not whether a specific piece of parchment survived, but that Mecklenburg County’s residents genuinely believed they had declared independence first – and that this belief shaped their identity and actions throughout the Revolutionary War.

The Broader Carolina Context

Mecklenburg County’s revolutionary fervor did not emerge in isolation but reflected broader patterns across North Carolina’s backcountry. The colony had long been divided between the coastal elite, who maintained closer ties to British authority and benefited from established trade networks, and the interior settlers, who felt neglected and exploited by both colonial and imperial governance. The Regulator movement of 1768-1771, though ultimately suppressed, demonstrated the depth of backcountry resentment against corrupt officials and unequal taxation.

Taylor’s American Colonies emphasizes how North Carolina’s geography created distinctive political tensions. The lack of good harbors and the challenge of navigating the Outer Banks limited direct trade with Britain, forcing backcountry farmers to market their goods through Virginia or South Carolina. This geographic isolation contributed to a sense of independence but also economic frustration. When revolutionary resistance began focusing on non-importation and self-sufficiency, North Carolina’s backcountry settlers found themselves ideally positioned – both practically and psychologically – to embrace economic separation from Britain.

The Role of Local Leadership

The patriot mindset in Mecklenburg County was not merely spontaneous popular uprising but reflected deliberate cultivation by local leaders. Figures like Thomas Polk, the Alexander family members, and Presbyterian ministers created networks of communication and mutual support that could rapidly mobilize community response to British actions. These leaders hosted meetings, circulated pamphlets and newspapers, and ensured that news from other colonies reached even remote settlements.

Captain James Jack’s legendary ride to Philadelphia, carrying news of Mecklenburg’s declarations to the Continental Congress, exemplifies this organized activism. While often compared to Paul Revere’s more famous midnight ride, Jack’s journey covered more than 500 miles through difficult terrain. The fact that the community could quickly select a messenger and coordinate such a mission demonstrates the level of political sophistication and preparation that existed in this supposedly frontier region. These were not impulsive rebels but organized revolutionaries who understood the importance of coordination and communication.

Legacy and Memory

The question of whether Mecklenburg County truly declared independence first, or whether the story represents wishful thinking and reconstructed memory, has occupied historians for two centuries. Five U.S. presidents – Taft, Wilson, Eisenhower, Ford, and George H.W. Bush – traveled to Charlotte to honor the claim, and North Carolina’s state flag and license plates proudly display “May 20, 1775” as the date of its first declaration of independence. This persistent commemoration reveals something important regardless of strict historical accuracy: the people of Mecklenburg County believed they acted first, and this belief shaped their understanding of their role in American independence.

In The First America Declaration of Independence?, Scott Syfert argues persuasively that the controversy over authenticity has obscured the more significant historical reality: Mecklenburg County residents did take radical steps toward independence remarkably early in the revolutionary process. Whether the exact language of the May 20 declaration is precisely as remembered matters less than the documented fact that this region rejected British authority in concrete, organized ways before most other American communities. The Mecklenburg Resolves of May 31, 1775, which survive in multiple contemporary accounts, established local governance independent of Crown authority and explicitly rejected parliamentary control.

A Distinctly Southern Revolution

The development of the patriot mindset in Mecklenburg County represents a distinctly Southern contribution to American revolutionary thought. Unlike New England, where merchant interests and urban intellectuals often led resistance, or the Chesapeake, where plantation aristocrats debated rights and representation, North Carolina’s backcountry revolution emerged from Scots-Irish settlers, Presbyterian theology, frontier pragmatism, and accumulated grievances against both colonial and imperial authority.

This revolutionary spirit drew from deep wells of cultural memory, religious conviction, intellectual sophistication, and practical necessity. The Scots-Irish brought resistance in their bones, forged through generations of discrimination. Presbyterian theology provided moral justification for questioning unjust authority. Princeton-educated leaders offered philosophical frameworks for understanding natural rights and legitimate government. And the practical experience of frontier life created communities accustomed to self-reliance and collective decision-making.

When these elements converged in May 1775, Mecklenburg County was prepared to do what seemed radical elsewhere: declare independence not tentatively or hypothetically, but as a concrete political reality. Whether historians ultimately validate every detail of the traditional account matters less than recognizing the genuine revolutionary fervor that existed in this remote corner of North Carolina. The patriot mindset did not begin in Philadelphia or Boston alone; it was simultaneously igniting in places like Charlotte, where different histories and distinct grievances produced the same conclusion: that free people must govern themselves or cease to be free.

The story of Mecklenburg County’s revolutionary development challenges us to recognize the multiple origins and diverse sources of American independence. The Revolution was not one movement but many, not one declaration but several, not one founding moment but an extended process of communities across thirteen colonies reaching similar conclusions through different paths. 

In understanding how the patriot mindset developed in North Carolina’s backcountry, we gain a richer, more complete picture of how America became independent – not through singular genius in a single place, but through the converging determination of many communities, each with its own story of resistance, its own declaration of freedom, and its own claim to have helped light freedom’s first flame.

A Note On This Series

This journey through Revolutionary history is as much about the evolution of historical understanding as the Revolution itself. History isn’t static – each generation reinterprets the past through its own concerns, asking different questions and prioritizing different sources. By reading these books in dialogue across 250 years, we’ll witness how scholarship evolves, how narratives get challenged, and how forgotten stories resurface.

This isn’t about declaring one interpretation “right” and another “wrong,” but appreciating the richness that emerges when multiple perspectives illuminate the same transformative moment. These books won’t provide definitive answers – history rarely does – but they equip us to think more clearly about how real people facing genuine uncertainty chose independence, how ideas had consequences, and how the work of creating a more perfect union continues. As we mark this anniversary, we honor the Revolutionary generation by reading deeply, thinking critically, and engaging seriously with both the brilliance and blind spots of what they created.


You can find the entire series listing here.

Reimagining a Continent’s Contested Past

Posted on by

January and February – Seeds of Rebellion Part One

Until the 1960s, American colonial history focused narrowly on English-speaking men along the Atlantic seaboard, portraying a triumphalist narrative of “American exceptionalism.” This conventional story treated women as passive, Indians as primitive obstacles, and African slaves as unfortunate aberrations in an otherwise uplifting tale of expanding English freedom and prosperity. Spanish, French, Dutch, and Russian colonies were dismissed as hostile, irrelevant backdrops to the English settlements that supposedly spawned the United States. 

This narrative placed “American” history as beginning in 1607 at Jamestown, spreading slowly westward to the Appalachians, and ignoring lands like Alaska and Hawaii until much later. While this simplification contains partial truths – many English colonists did achieve greater land ownership, prosperity, and social mobility than possible in hierarchical, impoverished England – it excludes the complex realities of women, enslaved Africans, Native peoples, and rival empires that shaped the colonial experience. This appealing but incomplete narrative persists in popular culture despite historians’ efforts to present a more comprehensive, diverse account of early America.

In an era when Americans fiercely debate whose stories belong in history textbooks, Alan Taylor’s American Colonies: The Settling of North America offers a sobering reminder: the fight over who controls the narrative is nothing new. For three centuries before the Revolution, indigenous nations, European empires, and African peoples struggled not just for land and resources, but for the power to define what “America” would become. 

In his precise and detailed opening chapter, Taylor provides a great deal of highly speculative information concerning the existing Native populations of the Americas. Long thought of as unchanging, new discoveries through archeology and anthropology have shown that the Native American cultures had a long and complicated history in the centuries before 1492.

Taylor opens his account of Spanish colonization with the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan in 1519, a city of perhaps 200,000 people – larger than any European city save Constantinople – about to be shattered by Spanish invasion. This image of a sophisticated civilization on the brink captures the book’s central insight: American history is a story of multiple advanced societies colliding, not civilization bringing light to wilderness.

The Historian Behind the Synthesis

Alan Taylor, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and specialist in early American history, published this volume in 2001 as part of the Penguin History of the United States series. His perspective matters because he belongs to a generation of historians who fundamentally reconceptualized colonial America. Where earlier scholars focused narrowly on the thirteen English colonies that became the United States, Taylor takes a continental approach, examining Spanish, French, Dutch, Russian, and Swedish colonies alongside English settlements. Trained in social history and influenced by Native American studies, environmental history, and Atlantic World scholarship, Taylor writes from a position that refuses to see American history as exceptional or inevitable. His work reflects decades of scholarly effort to decenter triumphalist narratives and take seriously the perspectives of colonialism’s victims and participants alike.

The Core Argument: Contingency Over Destiny

Taylor’s central interpretation dismantles the notion that North America was destined to become an English-speaking, Protestant nation devoted to liberty. Instead, he argues that colonial outcomes remained genuinely uncertain for centuries, shaped by disease, environmental factors, indigenous resistance, and the particular economic and religious motivations of different colonizers. “The varied peoples of early America had radically different goals, which they pursued with mixed results over three centuries of conflict and negotiation,” Taylor writes, emphasizing that what we call American history represents merely one possible outcome among many that seemed equally plausible at various moments.

The book challenges readers to recognize that indigenous peoples weren’t simply reacting to European arrival but were “making their own history” by forming strategic alliances, adapting to new technologies, and leveraging European rivalries to their advantage. Taylor insists that we cannot understand colonial America without recognizing Native Americans as central actors whose choices profoundly shaped events. Similarly, he argues that African slaves, despite their bondage, “became essential actors in the creation of colonial societies,” maintaining cultural practices and exercising whatever agency circumstances allowed.

The Author’s Voice: Complexity Without Judgment

Taylor’s prose combines scholarly precision with narrative power. Describing the Spanish conquest, he notes that while Cortés commanded only a few hundred men, “he benefited from invisible, unintended, and unanticipated allies: the microbes that carried epidemic diseases.” This formulation captures Taylor’s insistence on multi causal explanations that include biological and environmental factors alongside human agency.

His treatment of English colonization avoids both celebration and condemnation. Of Virginia, he writes: “The English came to Virginia as violent intruders intent on subordinating, displacing, or destroying the Indians who claimed the land.” Yet he also notes that “most colonists were themselves desperate people, escaping poverty and seeking opportunities denied them in England.” This even-handedness characterizes the entire book, as Taylor seeks to understand rather than judge, to complicate rather than simplify.

Perhaps most memorably, Taylor describes the Columbian Exchange as creating “a new world – indeed, new worlds – compounded from the unintended mixing of plants, animals, microbes, and peoples on an unprecedented scale.” This image of unintended consequences and biological transformation running ahead of human intentions recurs throughout the narrative.

Dialogue with the Field

Taylor’s work builds upon and synthesizes several historiographical traditions. He shares with Alfred Crosby’s “Ecological Imperialism” an emphasis on disease and environmental transformation as historical forces. His continental perspective echoes Herbert Bolton’s early twentieth-century call for a “borderlands” approach, though Taylor is far more critical of Spanish colonialism than Bolton.

Where traditional histories like Samuel Eliot Morison’s celebrated Puritan New England as the seedbed of American democracy, Taylor presents the Puritans as religious extremists whose “intolerance exceeded that of the English establishment they had fled.” His interpretation aligns with more recent scholars like Jill Lepore and James Brooks, who have emphasized colonial violence and indigenous perspectives.

Taylor also engages implicitly with the “Chesapeake School” of historians like Edmund Morgan and Kathleen Brown, who revealed how Virginia’s tobacco economy and racial slavery developed together. However, he places these regional stories within a broader hemispheric context, showing how Caribbean sugar colonies pioneered the brutal plantation system that mainland colonies would later adopt.

What We’ve Learned Since 2001

The two decades since publication have deepened rather than overturned Taylor’s interpretations. DNA evidence has confirmed the devastating scale of disease mortality among indigenous peoples, with some studies suggesting population declines of 90 percent or more – even worse than Taylor estimated. Archaeological work has continued revealing the sophistication of pre-Columbian societies, from Cahokia’s urban complexity to Amazonian landscape engineering.

Recent scholarship has further emphasized indigenous agency and survival. Books like Pekka Hämäläinen’s The Comanche Empire and Kathleen DuVal’s The Native Ground have shown powerful Native American polities dominating regions well into the nineteenth century, extending Taylor’s argument about indigenous power. Meanwhile, historians of slavery like Stephanie Smallwood and Vincent Brown have illuminated enslaved Africans’ cultural resilience and resistance in ways that complement Taylor’s brief treatment.

Climate history has also advanced, with research showing how the Little Ice Age affected colonial outcomes and how indigenous land management practices had shaped the “wilderness” Europeans thought they discovered. These developments enrich rather than challenge Taylor’s framework.

Why Read This in 2026?

In our current moment of contentious debates about how to teach American history, Taylor’s book offers invaluable perspective. It demonstrates that taking seriously the histories of indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans doesn’t diminish American history – it makes that history richer, more accurate, and more interesting. The book shows that the colonial past was genuinely multicultural, not through modern celebration but through conquest, coercion, and negotiation.

For readers seeking to understand how racial inequality became embedded in American society, Taylor traces slavery’s development with clarity and moral seriousness. For those curious about why the United States exists as an English-speaking nation when Spanish colonizers arrived first and French settlers often had better relations with Native Americans, Taylor explains the demographic, economic, and military factors that determined outcomes.

Most fundamentally, American Colonies teaches readers to think continentally and hemispherically, to see American history as connected to global processes rather than exceptional and isolated. In an increasingly interconnected world, this perspective seems more relevant than ever. Taylor’s work reminds us that the land we call America has always been contested ground where different peoples pursued competing visions of the future – and that understanding this contested past is essential for navigating our contested present.

A Note on This Series

This journey through Revolutionary history is as much about the evolution of historical understanding as the Revolution itself. History isn’t static – each generation reinterprets the past through its own concerns, asking different questions and prioritizing different sources. By reading these books in dialogue across 250 years, we’ll witness how scholarship evolves, how narratives get challenged, and how forgotten stories resurface.

This isn’t about declaring one interpretation “right” and another “wrong,” but appreciating the richness that emerges when multiple perspectives illuminate the same transformative moment. These books won’t provide definitive answers – history rarely does – but they equip us to think more clearly about how real people facing genuine uncertainty chose independence, how ideas had consequences, and how the work of creating a more perfect union continues. As we mark this anniversary, we honor the Revolutionary generation by reading deeply, thinking critically, and engaging seriously with both the brilliance and blind spots of what they created.

You can find the entire series listing here.

Before the First Shot, There Was the First Sentence

Posted on by


Why the American Revolution Was Written Before It Was Fought

Scroll. Refresh. Skim. In our world, information arrives instantly and in overwhelming volume. News breaks in seconds, arguments metastasize in minutes, and public opinion can shift before lunch. We live inside an always-on torrent of words, images, and reactions – so fast that reflection often lags behind reaction.

Now imagine the opposite.

Imagine waiting weeks for a newspaper. Imagine arguments unfolding over months. Imagine political ideas traveling by horseback, ship, or memory. Imagine reading the same pamphlet aloud to neighbors because it might be the only new text your community sees for weeks. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, information moved slowly – but when it arrived, it mattered profoundly.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution that followed, it’s tempting to focus on the drama of muskets and marches, of midnight rides and battlefield heroics. Those moments deserve attention. But they came late in the story. Long before the first shot was fired, the Revolution was already underway – through sermons, in ink, on paper, through the written word.

This year-long series will explore the American Revolution as a reading event before it became a fighting one. It’s important to reference the books, pamphlets, sermons, letters, and newspapers that didn’t merely comment on the Revolution but made it possible. To understand how thirteen disparate colonies became a people capable of declaring independence, we must first understand how they learned to read, argue, and imagine together.

A Culture Prepared for Words

By the mid-18th century, British North America possessed a surprising advantage: a population unusually comfortable with texts. Literacy rates – especially among white men, and to a notable extent among women in New England – were high by European standards. But this wasn’t literacy for convenience alone. Colonists didn’t just read to conduct business; they read to make meaning.

This habit had deep roots in Protestant culture. Sermons were long and intellectually demanding. Congregants were expected to follow complex theological arguments, grounded in careful textual interpretation. Disagreement wasn’t a flaw in the system – it was a feature. Competing interpretations of scripture trained people to weigh evidence, assess authority, and argue their case using words.

Long before colonists debated Parliament, they had debated doctrine. They had learned that texts mattered, that interpretation mattered, and that authority could be questioned on paper. When political conflict with Britain intensified after 1763, the colonies already possessed a population capable of sustained written argument. The Revolution did not have to invent this capacity; it inherited it.

Pamphlets: The Engine of Revolutionary Thought

If there was a dominant medium of revolutionary persuasion, it was the pamphlet. Cheap to print, easy to distribute, and brief enough to be read in a single sitting, pamphlets functioned as the social media of their day – though slower, denser, and far more deliberate.

Pamphlets could be passed hand to hand, read aloud in taverns, or discussed in homes and meetinghouses. A single copy could reach dozens. Writers often used pseudonyms, which encouraged boldness and protected reputations. The result was an explosion of argument.

The Stamp Act crisis of 1765 unleashed a wave of pamphlets asserting that Parliament had violated colonial rights. These texts did something crucial: they framed resistance not as rebellion, but as fidelity – to law, to history, to inherited rights. The argument was not “we reject authority,” but “you have misunderstood it.”

Over time, pamphlets standardized the language of resistance. Words like “liberty,” “tyranny,” and “rights” acquired shared meaning across colonies that otherwise differed dramatically in economy, religion, and culture. The Revolution began to sound the same everywhere because people were reading the same arguments.

That shared vocabulary mattered more than we often realize. You cannot coordinate a movement if people lack common terms for their grievances. Pamphlets supplied the grammar of revolt.

When Independence Became Readable

No single text illustrates the power of the written word better than Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Published in January 1776, it did not introduce radically new ideas. What it did was far more important: it made independence understandable.

Paine stripped away legal jargon and elite restraint. He wrote plainly, emotionally, and morally. He asked readers to imagine a future not tethered to monarchy. He treated independence not as a technical problem but as common sense.

The impact was electric. Tens of thousands of copies circulated in a population of roughly two and a half million. More importantly, it shifted the terms of debate. After Common Sense, the question was no longer whether independence was unthinkable, but whether it was unavoidable.

This is a recurring theme we will return to throughout this series: revolutions require not just anger or injustice, but imagination. Before Americans could fight for independence, they had to read their way into believing it was possible.

Newspapers and the Birth of a Shared Story

Pamphlets sparked arguments, but newspapers sustained them. Colonial newspapers reprinted essays, letters, speeches, and resolutions from other colonies, creating a shared political timeline. Events in Boston were read about in Charleston. Decisions in London were debated in Philadelphia.

This slow but steady flow of information had an unexpected benefit. Arguments unfolded over weeks and months, allowing readers time to absorb, discuss, and respond. Political persuasion was cumulative rather than explosive.

Writers often adopted classical pseudonyms – Brutus, Cato, Publius – signaling that this conflict belonged to a larger historical tradition. Readers were invited to see themselves not as isolated subjects but as participants in a drama that stretched back to Rome and beyond.

The colonies were not just informed by newspapers; they were formed by them.

Writing as Organization, Not Just Opinion

Words did more than persuade. They organized.

Letters between merchants, ministers, and political leaders coordinated boycotts and protests. Committees of Correspondence formalized writing as a tool of governance, linking towns and colonies long before any central authority existed.

Trust traveled on paper. So did strategy. Long before independence was declared, Americans were already practicing self-government through correspondence. Writing became the connective tissue of resistance.

This is an often-overlooked point: the Revolution did not spring fully formed in 1776. It was rehearsed for years in letters, resolutions, and shared texts. Americans learned how to govern themselves by writing to one another.

A Revolution Argued from Texts

Perhaps the most striking feature of the American Revolution is how insistently textual it was. Colonists grounded their resistance in written authorities: Magna Carta, English common law, colonial charters. Their case was not emotional alone; it was documentary.

Parliament responded with statutes. Colonists responded with interpretations. What ultimately broke was not communication, but agreement on what the texts meant. When shared interpretation failed, violence followed.

Even the Declaration of Independence reflects this mindset. It is not a manifesto shouted to the crowd, but an argument addressed to “a candid world.” It assumes readers. It assumes judgment. It seeks legitimacy through persuasion.

Why This Matters Now

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America, revisiting the Revolution through its reading life offers a timely corrective. It reminds us that the nation was not born from impulse, but from prolonged argument. That independence was not seized in a moment, but constructed over years of writing, reading, and debate.

This series will follow that paper trail as historians and biographers examine the texts that shaped revolutionary thought, the ideas they carried, and the habits of mind they formed. Not to romanticize the past, but to better understand it.

In an age of instant information, the Revolution invites us to remember a different tempo of change – one where ideas traveled slowly, but took root deeply. Before there was a nation, there was a conversation. And before there was a battle, there was a sentence.

The United States, in many ways, was written into existence.

As we embark on this exploration of how words shaped revolution, it’s worth anchoring ourselves in the broader journey of reflection unfolding in 2026. 

In What Does 1776 Mean in 2026? A Year of Revolutionary Reading, I invited readers to mark the semiquincentennial not simply with celebration, but with deep engagement in the very texts that have shaped our understanding of independence over the past 250 years. This series positions 1776 as more than a date – it’s a lens through which we can examine the ideas, individuals, and interpretations that have animated American history from the Bicentennial to today. My focus on the written word about the Revolution challenges us to slow down and read the past with care, recognizing that the arguments, debates, and narratives we inherit matter as much as the events they describe.

What’s up the rest of the month: We begin with the world the revolutionaries inherited, exploring Alan Taylor’s American Colonies and Bernard Bailyn’s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution – establishing the essential foundations for understanding how British subjects became American rebels.

images created with Gemini

You can find the entire series listing here.

What Does 1776 Mean in 2026? A Year of Revolutionary Reading

Posted on by

My love of American history began not in a classroom, but at home with a schoolteacher mother and a father who loved to read. My father passed along that love of reading to me. Those early lessons took on special meaning when I graduated from high school in 1976, surrounded by the red, white, and blue pageantry of America’s Bicentennial celebration. 

That summer of tall ships and fireworks, of patriotic fervor and historical reflection, and even marching in Disney World’s “America on Parade” planted something deep within me – a conviction that understanding our past is essential to navigating our present and future. 

Now 50 years later, as we approach America’s 250th anniversary in 2026, I find myself reflecting once again on the remarkable journey of this imperfect yet extraordinary experiment in self-governance. 

This series is my attempt to honor both my parent’s gift and that pivotal Bicentennial year by exploring the moments, movements, and individuals that created the unique country we call the United States of America.

On July 4, 2026, the United States will mark 250 years since fifty-six men affixed their signatures to a document that changed the world. The Declaration of Independence – just 1,320 words in its final form – proclaimed not merely a separation from Britain but articulated principles that would echo through centuries: that all men are created equal, that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, that people have the right to alter or abolish systems that deny their fundamental freedoms.

But those fifty-six signatures didn’t appear out of nowhere. The Declaration was the culmination of more than a decade of escalating tensions, philosophical debates, violent confrontations, and painful deliberations. It emerged from smoky taverns and elegant parlors, from passionate pamphlets and private letters, from town meetings and colonial assemblies. It was shaped by brilliant minds and ordinary citizens, by idealists and pragmatists, by those who saw its promises and those whom it excluded.

As we approach this momentous anniversary, I want to embark on a year-long exploration of the books that help us understand not just what happened in 1776, but why it happened, who made it happen, and what it has meant across two and a half centuries. This is a journey through the written word about the written word – an examination of how historians, biographers, and interpreters have wrestled with the meaning of American independence.

Why Books? Why Now?

The Revolutionary period is perhaps the most written-about era in American history, and that abundance presents both opportunity and challenge. 

  • Where does one begin? 
  • Which voices matter most? 
  • How do we move beyond the mythology to understand the messy, complicated, human reality of revolution?

Books give us something that isolated facts cannot: context, interpretation, argument, and narrative. A great book about 1776 doesn’t just tell us what happened – it helps us understand the forces that shaped events, the ideas that animated the actors, and the consequences that rippled forward through time. The best books argue with each other, challenge conventional wisdom, recover forgotten voices, and force us to reconsider what we thought we knew.

Over the coming months, I want to invite you to read your way through the Revolution, examining at least a dozen essential works that illuminate different facets of this transformative period. We’ll encounter military campaigns and diplomatic negotiations, philosophical treatises and personal correspondence, grand declarations and intimate doubts. We’ll see the Revolution through the eyes of its famous architects – Adams, Jefferson, Franklin – and through the perspectives often marginalized in traditional histories: women, enslaved people, Native Americans, and ordinary colonists whose names we’ll never know but whose participation made independence possible.

The Books That Await Us

The reading list spans generations of scholarship, from Bernard Bailyn’s revolutionary (in both senses) analysis of colonial ideology to Gary Nash’s recovery of the “unknown” American Revolution. We’ll immerse ourselves in David McCullough’s intimate portraits of the founding generation, experiencing their fears and ambitions as if we’re reading over their shoulders. We’ll grapple with Gordon Wood’s interpretations of just how radical this revolution really was, and we’ll examine the Declaration itself through David Armitage’s global lens, understanding how this American document became a template for independence movements worldwide.

Some of these books will transport us to specific moments – the sweltering Philadelphia summer when delegates debated each phrase of the Declaration, the frozen desperation of Washington’s army in the winter of 1776, the coffeehouse conversations where ideas about natural rights and popular sovereignty crackled through the air. Others will challenge us to think more deeply about contradictions and complexities: 

  • How could men who proclaimed all men equal hold other human beings in bondage? 
  • How could colonists who resented British taxation deny representation to half their population?
  • What did independence mean to those who didn’t sign the Declaration, who couldn’t sign it, who actively opposed it?

A Conversation Across Centuries

What makes this journey particularly fascinating is that we’re not just reading about the Revolution – we’re reading about how people have understood the Revolution across 250 years. History isn’t static; each generation interprets the past through its own concerns and values. The historians writing in the 1960s asked different questions than those writing today. The documents that seemed important in 1826 differ from those scholars prioritize in 2026.

By reading these books in dialogue with each other, we’ll see how historical understanding evolves. We’ll watch as newer scholarship challenges older narratives, as primary sources get reinterpreted, as forgotten stories get recovered. Bernard Bailyn opened new ways of understanding colonial ideology in the 1960s; Gary Nash, writing decades later, insisted we expand our frame to include those Bailyn’s sources largely ignored. This isn’t about one being “right” and another “wrong” – it’s about the richness that emerges when multiple perspectives illuminate the same transformative moment.

The Path Forward

Beginning this month, we’ll follow a roughly chronological path through the Revolutionary period, though we’ll make deliberate detours along the way. We’ll start with the deep background – the colonial world that made revolution thinkable – before moving through the escalating crisis of the 1760s and 1770s. We’ll live through the pivotal year of 1776 month by month, watching as rebellion became revolution and revolution became a declaration of independence.

A possibility, as summer turns to fall: we’ll step back and ask harder questions.

  • Whose revolution was this, really?
  • What about the people whose stories don’t appear in the Declaration, whose freedom wasn’t proclaimed on July 4, 1776?
  • How have historians with different methods, different politics, different moral concerns made sense of this complicated legacy?

Each month, the focus will be on multiple books, exploring not just their arguments but their artistry – the way great historical writing makes the past come alive, the way a well-chosen anecdote can illuminate broad themes, the way primary sources in the hands of skilled interpreters can still surprise us centuries later. I plan to include key quotes from these works, letting you hear the distinctive voices of different authors, the varied ways historians craft their narratives.

I always want to connect past to present. The questions the founders grappled with – about power and liberty, unity and diversity, ideals and interests – remain our questions. The contradictions they failed to resolve – most devastatingly around slavery – shaped American history for centuries and resonate still. Understanding 1776 means understanding ourselves.

Why This Matters in 2026

A 250th anniversary is more than nostalgia or celebration. It’s an opportunity for national reflection and, perhaps, reckoning. 

  • What has the Declaration’s promise of equality meant across two and a half centuries? 
  • How much of that promise has been fulfilled? 
  • How much remains aspirational? What do we owe to the founders’ courage and vision? 
  • What do we owe to those they excluded, oppressed, or ignored?

The books we’ll read don’t answer these questions definitively – history rarely does. But they give us the tools to think more clearly, to argue more precisely, to understand more fully. They remind us that the Revolution wasn’t inevitable, that independence was chosen by real people facing genuine uncertainty, that ideas have consequences, and that the work of creating a more perfect union didn’t end in 1776 or 1789 or at any point since.

As we prepare to mark this anniversary, there’s no better way to honor the Revolutionary generation than by reading deeply, thinking critically, and engaging seriously with what they created – both its brilliance and its blind spots. The Declaration of Independence changed the world, but understanding how and why requires more than reciting its famous phrases. It requires the kind of sustained attention that only books can provide.

Join the Journey

Over the coming months, I hope these articles will arrive like letters from another time – invitations to walk alongside historians as they piece together the past, to sit with biographers as they bring individuals back to life, to witness through primary sources the anxieties and exhilarations of a world being remade.

Whether you’re a devoted student of American history or someone who vaguely remembers learning about 1776 in school, whether you’ve read everything about the Revolution or nothing at all, this series will meet you where you are. Each article will stand alone, but together they’ll form a mosaic – a complex, nuanced portrait of how the United States came to declare its independence and what that declaration has meant.

The road to independence was long, uncertain, and traveled by countless people whose commitment to an idea transformed thirteen colonies into a new nation. The road to understanding independence is equally long, equally rich with discovery. 

Next week: Before the First Shot, There Was the First Sentence: Why the American Revolution Was Written Before It Was Fought

You can find the entire series listing here.

Following the Tracks of History: October on the Road

Posted on by

As an amateur historian researching the pivotal role of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, NC, in the American Revolution (see series here), a single historical thread kept pulling me away from all the activities and toward the migration route that made that history possible: The Great Wagon Road. This discovery, with its echoes of countless family journeys, has launched me into an October on the Road – a deeply personal historical pilgrimage that traces the dusty path of colonial pioneers from Pennsylvania south into the Carolinas.

While in reality it was a rough, difficult-to-travel dirt path, it was an 18th-century “superhighway,” a lifeline for tens of thousands of colonial pioneers – predominantly Scots-Irish and German immigrants – who fled the crowded, expensive lands around Philadelphia. In search of cheaper land and new opportunities, they packed their lives into sturdy Conestoga wagons and headed south, opening up the backcountry of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia to permanent settlement. The Great Wagon Road didn’t just move people; it transplanted cultures, languages, and political ideals, directly setting the stage for the Revolutionary fervor I’ve been researching in North Carolina.

Appropriately, it was a book that inspired my final decision to hit the road!

The Road That Made America: A Modern Pilgrim’s Journey on the Great Wagon Road, is a modern, first-person account following the original path of the Great Wagon Road. James Dodson, whose own ancestors took the road, blends personal narrative with historical research to explore the road’s enduring legacy. The book highlights the strategic importance of the route during major conflicts like the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, and it discusses how the towns along the way became incubators of early American industry. It is a poignant and well-written narrative, and I highly recommend it for readers interested in the early years of America as populations moved away from the east coast into the interior of the country.

From History to Heritage: An Adams Family Mystery

The historical context of the Great Wagon Road has, by sheer coincidence, merged seamlessly with a recently renewed focus on my own Adams family genealogy. Building upon the dedicated work of my niece Amanda, I’ve been pursuing the timeless questions we often ask when thinking of our ancestors: Who were they? Where did they come from? How did they get here?

My “October on the Road” is now a double-barreled journey of discovery: one focused on the road’s strategic historical significance, and the other on solving the enduring mystery of my 2nd great-grandfather, John Washington Adams. The path beyond him is currently fractured into two intriguing, yet conflicting, ancestral branches:

  1. The German Branch: Historical records suggest one line of my ancestors arrived in Philadelphia in the early 1700s from Germany. They spent several generations building a life in Pennsylvania before joining the southern flow on the Great Wagon Road, eventually settling around Salisbury, NC, before finally heading over the mountains into Tennessee. This is the line most directly tied to the wagon road’s main migratory period.
  2. The Puritan Branch: Another set of historical records points to an arrival of Adams ancestors nearly a century earlier, placing my American lineage beginning in 1621 at Plymouth, MA. This branch remained in New England for six generations before a later move to Maryland, and then continuing the westward/southward push toward Tennessee.

This road trip is my chance to travel the ground these families would have walked, to breathe the air of the places they named, and perhaps, to find the subtle geographic clues that can reconcile or confirm one of these diverging family narratives.

The Journey: Following the Faint Tracks

An already-planned fall road trip with Anita now has a consciously revised itinerary, transforming a week in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley into a dedicated pursuit of the Great Wagon Road. Our journey begins where the pioneers did – in the former colonial heartland of Pennsylvania – and will trace the route through West Virginia, Virginia, and into North Carolina.

Northbound Starting Points and Key Stops:

The road’s path is marked by the towns that sprang up to service the steady stream of travelers, and our itinerary will hit the major historical anchors:

  • Pennsylvania: The journey begins at the source, near Philadelphia, before entering major hubs like Lancaster and York, where wagons were outfitted and supplies purchased.
  • Maryland: The route continues through Hagerstown, a key trading hub settled by German immigrants like my potential ancestors.
  • Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley: This days-long segment will immerse us in the heart of the journey. We’ll travel through historic towns like Winchester, Staunton, and Lexington, observing how the fertile land drew in settlers and sustained the immense movement. This region is critical, as it’s where the road begins to fan out – the point where the Wilderness Road branched off towards the Cumberland Gap, and where the main track continued south towards the Carolinas.

The Southern Destination: Old Salem, Salisbury and Charlotte

After the week-long segment depicted above, my “October on the Road” will continue with multiple day trips throughout North Carolina – the destination of one of my Adams family branches.

  • Salisbury: This town is a primary destination, as it was a major terminus for settlers from Pennsylvania and the likely settling point for my German ancestors before they made their final move west to Tennessee. Its growth was directly tied to the lifeblood of the Great Wagon Road.
  • Winston-Salem: We will visit the Moravian Settlements (focusing on Old Salem), which served as a critical, well-organized cultural and economic hub along the road, demonstrating the German religious influence on the southern backcountry.
  • Charlotte: Finally, I’ll arrive home in the region that initiated this journey. Charlotte, and by extension Mecklenburg County, benefited immensely from the road, which facilitated the explosive growth that made it a significant political and economic force by the time of the Revolution – the very history I set out to document.

This October, I won’t just be reading maps and records; I’ll be experiencing the figurative road itself. I’m seeking the resonance between the grand scale of colonial migration and the intimate story of my own family, hoping to see evidence of the Adams name not just on a ledger, but on the very land they crossed. This trip promises to transform the Great Wagon Road from a historical reference into a living, ancestral pathway.

Part of a series on 27gen, entitled Wednesday Weekly Reader.

During my elementary school years one of the things I looked forward to the most was the delivery of “My Weekly Reader,” a weekly educational magazine designed for children and containing news-based current events.

It became a regular part of my love for reading, and helped develop my curiosity about the world around us.

The First Flame of Freedom: The Spirit of 1775 Lives in This Lost Novel of the South

Posted on by

We’ve come to the conclusion of a 5-part series of books about Mecklenburg County and Charlotte, NC during the years immediately preceding, and carrying through, the American Revolution – roughly 1765-1783. The final book – also the oldest, published in 1940 – is a work of fiction – but one that in my opinion provides an often missing part of understanding history.

Historical fiction serves as a vital bridge between past and present, transforming distant events and forgotten voices into vivid, accessible narratives that resonate with contemporary readers. Through the careful weaving of documented facts with imaginative storytelling, this genre breathes life into history’s dry statistics and dates, allowing us to experience the emotional truths of bygone eras through the eyes of characters who feel authentically human.

More than mere entertainment, historical fiction cultivates empathy by immersing readers in the struggles, triumphs, and daily realities of people from different times and cultures, fostering a deeper understanding of how historical forces shape individual lives. By illuminating the universal themes that connect us across centuries – love, loss, courage, and the pursuit of justice – historical fiction reminds us that while circumstances may change, the fundamental human experience remains remarkably constant, offering both perspective on our present challenges and hope for our shared future.

In Alexandriana, LeGette Blythe crafts a sweeping, nostalgic, and quietly patriotic novel that vividly resurrects colonial North Carolina on the eve of the American Revolution. First published in 1940, Alexandriana is both a regional romance and a work of historical fiction grounded in the lore surrounding Mecklenburg County’s bold – if disputed – claim to be the first American community to declare independence from Britain.

Though largely forgotten in modern literary circles, Blythe’s work deserves fresh attention, not only for its historical significance but for the way it captures a uniquely Southern imagination rooted in land, lineage, and the lingering hope of liberty.

Set in the early 1770s, Alexandriana follows the fictional life of David Barksdale, a spirited young man growing up on the prosperous John McKnitt Alexander plantation near present-day Charlotte. Named “Alexandriana”, the home stands as a symbol of frontier civility and classical refinement in a still-wild land. The novel follows Barksdale’s involvement in many events and battles both preceding and throughout the years of the American Revolution. His persona reflects the emerging tide of revolutionary thought sweeping the Carolina backcountry.

The novel opens in a world still ruled by British custom, Anglican orthodoxy, and class hierarchy. Barksdale is a “bound” boy – a form of apprenticeship. Throughout the years of the novel he grows from a shy boy to an educated young man. His father figure, John McKnitt Alexander, is depicted as the literal center of revolutionary thought in the county – secret meetings with fellow patriots, rumors of rebellion, and, eventually, involvement in what will be known as the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

Barksdale’s personal journey mirrors the broader political transformation of the region. He is shown to be sympathetic to the cause of liberty from the outset, influenced by Alexander’s passion, the injustices he witnesses under British rule, and the writings of well-known “revolutionaries” of the time. When war finally breaks out, Alexandriana becomes both a sanctuary and a battleground: a place where love, loss, and loyalty are all tested.

As the revolution accelerates, the novel becomes more dramatic. Skirmishes erupt. Families are torn apart by divided allegiances. Barksdale himself faces danger and heartbreak, from almost being hung as a traitor by English soldiers to escaping capture when lured by a forbidden love. As the novel proceeds, almost every historical figure involved in the battles in and around the Charlotte area are introduced and developed. Signers of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, Regulators, English commanders – even a young Andrew Jackson (from nearby Waxhaws) is fleshed out and brought to real life. The novel ends on an bittersweet note: independence is achieved, but at a great personal and communal cost. Alexandriana, both the homestead and the idea it represents, survives – but not without scars. Barksdale, now a young man, leaves his home of many years to marry the young woman introduced in the opening pages and teased throughout as beyond his reach.

LeGette Blythe, a North Carolina native and journalist, imbues Alexandriana with a deep affection for the region and its lore. The novel is richly atmospheric, with rolling descriptions of Carolina pine forests, rustic taverns, and parlor rooms filled with candlelight and the scent of a log fire. Blythe’s prose leans toward the romantic, evoking a wistful tone that matches the novel’s reverence for a lost world.

One of the novel’s most compelling strengths is its ability to humanize history. Rather than simply recount events like the the rumored May 20, 1775 declaration or the Mecklenburg Resolves, Blythe roots these moments in lived experience – arguments around supper tables, furtive whispers in barns, and agonizing decisions between loyalty and conscience. Barksdale’s coming-of-age arc gives readers an intimate view of how revolutions aren’t just fought on battlefields, but also in hearts and homes.

That said, the novel is unapologetically idealistic. Alexandriana itself is portrayed almost as an Eden – lush, orderly, cultured – run by benevolent landowners whose relationships with enslaved people are depicted in overly sentimental, unrealistic terms. As with many works of mid-20th-century Southern fiction, the institution of slavery is conspicuously softened. Though enslaved characters appear in the novel, they are relegated to the margins, rarely given full interior lives or moral agency. This romanticization reflects the blind spots of its time and warrants critical scrutiny by modern readers.

The same can be said for gender. While Barksdale’s two love interests are strong and thoughtful protagonists by the standards of the era, their agency is still circumscribed by patriarchal expectations. Their intellectual awakening is real, but their fates is ultimately tied to romantic and domestic fulfillment. Nevertheless, within these constraints, Blythe offers moments of genuine psychological insight. Barksdale’s internal struggle – between security and self-determination, decorum and defiance – feels authentic and earned.

Blythe’s historical detail is generally accurate, though he takes creative liberties to dramatize local legend. The Mecklenburg Declaration, which remains a subject of historical debate, is treated as fact in the novel. Yet this act of myth-making is part of the novel’s charm. Blythe isn’t trying to write academic history; he’s offering a literary defense of a community’s heroic self-conception. In doing so, he elevates local memory to the level of national meaning.

Alexandriana is a novel deeply rooted in time and place. While some of its portrayals are dated, its core themes – political awakening, the price of conviction, and the tension between tradition and transformation – remain relevant. For readers interested in Southern history, American independence, or the complexities of heritage and identity, Alexandriana offers a compelling, if imperfect, window into the birth of a nation from the Carolina frontier.

Like the homestead at its center, the novel is a blend of beauty and contradiction – elegant yet flawed, stirring yet shadowed. It invites both admiration and critique. And in that, perhaps, lies its enduring value.

Part of a regular series on 27gen, entitled Wednesday Weekly Reader.

During my elementary school years one of the things I looked forward to the most was the delivery of “My Weekly Reader,” a weekly educational magazine designed for children and containing news-based current events.

It became a regular part of my love for reading, and helped develop my curiosity about the world around us.

Note: Header art ©Dan Nance; LeGette Blythe photo  ©Charlotte Mecklenburg Library

Stirring The Hornet’s Nest: A Unique Look at the American Revolution in the South

Posted on by

When I first began this short series, I intended to limit it to the environs of Mecklenburg County and Charlotte, NC during the years immediately preceding, and carrying through, the American Revolution – roughly 1765-1773. The series covers five books, with the most recent publication first (2023), and then going back over seven decades to 1940.

Almost immediately my research brought up a much repeated phrase: the hornet’s nest – attributed to Lord Cornwallis in referring to the stubborn and insistent fighting of North Carolina militia in the battle of Charlotte on September 26, 1780. While the battle itself was relatively insignificant in the larger scheme of things, that phrase aptly describes the spirit and determination of the North Carolina people leading up the Revolution.

So, when I discovered The Hornet’s Nest, I was eager to open it and read about the story taking place in…

Georgia?

When most people think of Jimmy Carter, they envision the 39th President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and humanitarian icon. What they might not expect is a novelist capable of crafting a gripping historical thriller that transports readers to the brutal realities of the Revolutionary War. Yet that’s exactly what Carter accomplishes in “The Hornet’s Nest,” a sweeping historical novel that demonstrates his remarkable versatility as a storyteller and his deep understanding of American history. The book is the first work of fiction by a President of the United States.

Set in the Georgia backcountry during the Revolutionary War, Hornet’s Nest follows the fictional Pratt family as they navigate the treacherous landscape of colonial America’s fight for independence. The story centers on Ethan Pratt, a young surveyor who finds himself torn between his Quaker upbringing and the violent realities of war. When British forces threaten his community and family – first in North Carolina, then in Georgia, Ethan must decide whether to maintain his pacifist beliefs or take up arms against the Crown.

Carter’s intimate knowledge of Georgia’s history and geography shines through every page. The author, himself a Georgia native, brings an authentic voice to the colonial South that feels both historically accurate and emotionally resonant. His descriptions of the untamed wilderness, the harsh realities of frontier life, and the complex political allegiances of the time create a vivid backdrop that immerses readers in the period.

Hornet’s Nest is a work of historical fiction – the first in this series, but not the last! And the title, as noted above, is a quite common phrase when referring to the North Carolina’s American Revolution story, as you will see next week.

Character Development and Narrative Strength

What sets Hornet’s Nest apart from typical historical fiction is Carter’s nuanced approach to character development. Ethan Pratt is no stereotypical hero; he’s a conflicted young man struggling with moral complexities that have no easy answers. His evolution from peaceful surveyor to reluctant participant in violence reflects the broader transformation of American society during this pivotal period.

The supporting characters are equally well-developed. Epsey, Ethan’s strong-willed wife, represents the often-overlooked perspective of women during the Revolutionary War. Her intelligence and resilience challenge contemporary gender expectations while remaining true to the historical context. The British officers, Native American allies, and colonial militia members are portrayed with complexity rather than as one-dimensional villains or heroes.

Carter’s background as a former president brings a unique perspective to the political machinations of the war. He understands the delicate balance of power, the importance of alliances, and the way personal relationships can influence historical events. This political acumen elevates the novel beyond simple adventure story into a thoughtful examination of how ordinary people navigate extraordinary circumstances.

Historical Authenticity and Research

The novel’s historical accuracy is one of its greatest strengths. Carter clearly conducted extensive research into the Revolutionary War’s Southern Theater, often overlooked in favor of more famous Northern battles. He brings to life the brutal partisan warfare that characterized the conflict in Georgia and the Carolinas, where neighbor fought neighbor and traditional rules of warfare often dissolved into chaos. In fact, some historians refer to this as America’s first “Civil War” as patriots often battled Tories – while from the same area and often related as family.

The author’s attention to detail extends beyond major historical events to include the daily realities of colonial life. From the tools used by surveyors to the political tensions between different religious groups, Carter creates a world that feels lived-in and authentic. His descriptions of Native American customs and British military procedures demonstrate a commitment to historical accuracy that scholarly readers will appreciate.

About the title – it seems that Carter applied the term “hornet’s nest” (first used in the early 1700s and already in colloquial use, symbolizing a source of trouble or agitation) to an area designated by the patriots fighting the British in Georgia as a place of safety. In the book, it was an area of several separated forts with good trails connecting them along with maximum natural protection from impassable creeks, swamps, and hills. Since the story does not include the battle of Charlotte, it would seem that Carter utilized author’s license to appropriate the “hornet’s nest” phrase for the book title and action scenes throughout.

Themes and Relevance

Beneath its adventure narrative, Hornet’s Nest explores themes that resonate beyond its historical setting. The tension between idealism and pragmatism, the cost of violence even in just causes, and the complexity of moral decision-making during wartime all speak to contemporary concerns. Carter’s experience as a peacemaker and his Christian faith inform his nuanced treatment of these themes without overwhelming the story.

The novel also examines the often-forgotten diversity of the Revolutionary War era. Carter includes perspectives from various social classes, ethnic groups, and religious backgrounds, creating a more complete picture of colonial American society than many historical novels provide. This inclusive approach reflects both good historical practice and the author’s lifelong commitment to human rights.

Literary Merit and Accessibility

While Carter may be better known for his political and humanitarian work, Hornet’s Nest demonstrates genuine literary talent. His prose is clear and engaging, never sacrificing readability for literary pretension. The pacing effectively balances action sequences with character development and historical context, keeping readers engaged throughout the novel’s substantial length.

The dialogue feels natural and period-appropriate without being overly archaic or difficult to follow. Carter strikes the right balance between historical authenticity and modern accessibility, making the novel appealing to both serious historical fiction readers and those seeking an entertaining adventure story.

Hornet’s Nest stands as a testament to Jimmy Carter’s remarkable range of talents. While it may not revolutionize the historical fiction genre, it offers a compelling, well-researched, and thoughtfully written exploration of a crucial period in American history. The novel succeeds both as an entertaining adventure and as a serious examination of the moral complexities inherent in violent conflict.

For readers interested in the Revolutionary War, Southern history, or simply well-crafted historical fiction, Hornet’s Nest provides a satisfying reading experience. It reminds us that history is made not just by famous generals and politicians, but by ordinary people facing extraordinary circumstances with courage, conviction, and humanity.

Carter’s transition from statesman to novelist proves that great leaders often possess the storytelling ability that helped shape their public success. Hornet’s Nest is a worthy addition to the historical fiction canon and a fascinating glimpse into the creative mind of one of America’s most respected public figures.

While the majority of the book veered outside my intended scope of the Charlotte, NC area, I found it a thoroughly fascinating account of the little-known battles and everyday lives of colonists in the times leading up to, and through, the American Revolution.

Part of a regular series on 27gen, entitled Wednesday Weekly Reader.

During my elementary school years one of the things I looked forward to the most was the delivery of “My Weekly Reader,” a weekly educational magazine designed for children and containing news-based current events.

It became a regular part of my love for reading, and helped develop my curiosity about the world around us.

Note: Header art by ©Dan Nance

Unearthing America’s First Declaration: A Revolutionary Precedent

Posted on by

Going back in time (by date of book publication), today’s WWR article is a continuation of the events in and around Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, NC preceding and during the American Revolution. Though I hadn’t intended to make a series out of it, the source material and local connections are just too fascinating!

Last week’s introduction was Who’s Your Founding Father, published by David Fleming (2023). Today’s article dives into The First American Declaration of Independence? by Scott Syfert (2014).

Background: According to the traditional account, Colonel Thomas Polk summoned representatives from each militia company in Mecklenburg County to meet at the Charlotte courthouse on May 19, 1775. As delegates gathered, news arrived of the previous month’s battles at Lexington and Concord, inflaming anti-British sentiment. The representatives elected Abraham Alexander as chairman and John McKnitt Alexander as secretary.

A three-man committee drafted four resolutions, with the most significant declaring that “we the citizens of Mecklenburg county, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown” and asserting that the county’s inhabitants were “free and independent.” Captain James Jack was then tasked with carrying this declaration to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

Scott Syfert’s meticulously researched book tackles one of American history’s most enduring mysteries: Did residents of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, declare independence from Great Britain on May 20, 1775 – more than a year before the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence? This controversy, which has captivated historians and patriots for over two centuries, receives its most comprehensive treatment in Syfert’s balanced and engaging analysis.

Syfert, a Charlotte-based attorney and historian, aims to elevate the significance of the this action, arguing for its rightful place as a precursor to the more widely recognized Philadelphia Declaration of 1776.

The First American Declaration of Independence delves into a pivotal, yet often overlooked, moment in American history: the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. For anyone interested in the true origins of American independence and the often-complex narratives that shape our understanding of the past, Syfert’s book offers a compelling and thought-provoking read.

At the heart of Syfert’s argument is the assertion that the citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, took a radical, unprecedented step on May 20, 1775. Just weeks after the battles of Lexington and Concord, and a full year before the Continental Congress adopted its Declaration, a committee in Charlotte reportedly declared their independence from Great Britain. The “MeckDec”, as it came to be known, allegedly renounced allegiance to the Crown, established local self-governance, and called for the formation of a provisional government. 

The book begins by establishing the cultural and political backdrop that would make such an early declaration plausible. Syfert traces the settlement of Mecklenburg County by Scots-Irish Presbyterians who carried deep-seated grievances against British authority. These settlers had endured religious persecution in Ireland and continued to face discrimination in the American colonies, where their Presbyterian faith marked them as outsiders. He explores the local political landscape, the influence of key figures, and the prevailing sentiments that made such a declaration not only possible but, in the eyes of its proponents, necessary.

The author demonstrates how these grievances intensified when the British Privy Council in London voided colonial legislation that had granted the Mecklenburg settlers the right to establish Queen’s College and allowed their ministers to perform legal marriages. This betrayal, following their support of royal governor William Tryon against the Regulator movement in 1771, further alienated the community from British rule.

One of the book’s greatest strengths lies in Syfert’s rigorous approach to historical evidence. The Mecklenburg Declaration has long been shrouded in controversy, with some historians dismissing it as a fabrication or a misremembered account. Syfert confronts these doubts head-on, presenting a wealth of primary and secondary sources to bolster his claims. He examines contemporary newspaper accounts, personal testimonies, and official records, carefully dissecting the arguments for and against the Declaration’s authenticity. While acknowledging the challenges posed by the loss of original documents (reportedly destroyed in a fire around April 1800), Syfert builds a strong circumstantial case, drawing connections between various pieces of evidence that, when viewed collectively, suggest the MeckDec was indeed a genuine expression of revolutionary sentiment. His detailed analysis of the language used, comparing it to other revolutionary documents of the era, further strengthens his position, highlighting the striking similarities in tone and intent to later declarations of independence.

Beyond the historical detective work, Syfert’s narrative is remarkably engaging. He avoids the dry, academic tone that can sometimes plague historical texts, instead adopting a style that is both accessible and passionate. He brings the figures of 1775 Mecklenburg to life, allowing readers to understand the courage and conviction required to defy a powerful empire. The book is not just a chronological account of events; it’s an exploration of the motivations, fears, and aspirations of ordinary people caught in extraordinary times. Syfert skillfully weaves together local anecdotes with broader historical trends, demonstrating how the specific circumstances in Mecklenburg County mirrored, and perhaps even influenced, the larger movement towards American independence.

However, it is important to note that the debate surrounding the Mecklenburg Declaration’s authenticity continues among historians. While Syfert presents a compelling case, readers should be aware that his interpretation is not universally accepted. Some scholars maintain that the “Mecklenburg Declaration” was either a later misremembering of the less radical “Mecklenburg Resolves” (which called for local governance but not outright independence) or a complete fabrication. Syfert addresses these counter-arguments, but the book ultimately serves as a powerful advocate for the Declaration’s legitimacy. This ongoing scholarly discussion, far from detracting from the book, actually enhances its value, as it encourages readers to critically engage with historical evidence and consider multiple perspectives.

Scott Syfert’s The First American Declaration of Independence is an essential read for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the American Revolution. It is a testament to the power of local initiative and the diverse origins of the independence movement. Syfert’s meticulous research, combined with his engaging narrative style, makes a strong case for the Mecklenburg Resolves as a significant, albeit controversial, milestone in the journey towards American self-governance. Whether one fully accepts the Declaration’s authenticity or remains skeptical, Syfert’s work undeniably enriches our appreciation for the complex tapestry of events that led to the birth of the United States. It challenges conventional narratives and reminds us that the seeds of liberty were sown in many places, by many hands, long before the grand pronouncements of Philadelphia.

A Note to Readers About Today’s (and many other) Wednesday Weekly Reader Articles
Today’s article – as well as many others you will read here – are based on the concept of synoptical reading. I first became aware of, and practiced, this type of reading in graduate school in the early 1980’s. Though intended primarily for scholarly reading, over the years I have found it also quite enjoyable for reading of all kinds, especially reading for the pure pleasure of reading.

Think of synoptical reading as the ultimate book conversation – it’s what happens when you gather multiple authors around the same topic and let them hash it out. Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren called this the highest form of reading in their classic How to Read a Book, and for good reason. Instead of just absorbing what one author tells you, synoptical reading involves collecting different books on the same subject and playing intellectual detective, looking for patterns, contradictions, and those “aha!” moments when seemingly unrelated ideas suddenly click together.

It’s like being a moderator at a debate where the participants wrote their arguments decades or even centuries apart. You’re not just reading – you’re orchestrating a dialogue between minds, asking tough questions, and building something new from the collision of different perspectives. This approach becomes incredibly powerful because it reveals how ideas evolve over time, exposes the blind spots that individual authors might miss, and often leads to insights that none of the original writers could have reached alone. In our current world of endless information streams, synoptical reading is less about consuming more content and more about becoming a thoughtful curator who can weave together the best thinking on complex topics into something genuinely illuminating.

Learn more about syntopical reading.

Part of a regular series on 27gen, entitled Wednesday Weekly Reader.

During my elementary school years one of the things I looked forward to the most was the delivery of “My Weekly Reader,” a weekly educational magazine designed for children and containing news-based current events.

It became a regular part of my love for reading, and helped develop my curiosity about the world around us.

Note: Header art by ©Dan Nance