National Historic Marker Day - 26 April

Historic markers all across the nation provide a glimpse into the past and preserve history for future generations. On the last Friday in April each year, National Historic Marker Day invites volunteers and communities to come together to maintain their markers. Unfortunately, weather and time take their toll on these small monuments to history. By working together, we not only ensure these markers tell the stories to future generations, but we also take the opportunity to celebrate the history and culture they preserve.

National Historic Marker Day

Historic markers pop up all over the country. In fact, according to the Historical Marker Database, more than 157,000 historic markers preserve history across the United States. Look closely, and you will see them near significant natural formations, state and national trails, historic buildings and communities, and even cemeteries. They tell stories of cultural, national, and historical significance. They also remind us of the people who lived, worked, contributed, played, created, and survived in communities all across the country.

Many historic markers are neglected and in need of upkeep. National Historic Marker Day invites individuals and communities to come together to restore and preserve these glimpses into our culture and history.

HOW TO OBSERVE NATIONAL HISTORIC MARKER DAY

• Register your local or regional National Historic Marker Day event on the William G. Pomeroy Foundation website: wgpfoundation.org
• Volunteer to clean and preserve historic markers in your community.
• Share your event with others to showcase your progress and community spirit.
• Lead a fun educational activity to encourage student engagement with history.
• Join the conversation by using #NationalHistoricMarkerDay on social media.
• Follow the Pomeroy Foundation on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to see photos from volunteers across the country.

NATIONAL HISTORIC MARKER DAY HISTORY

The William G. Pomeroy Foundation established National Historic Marker Day in 2021 to highlight the value historic markers bring to the entire country and encourage volunteers to help preserve them. More than three dozen volunteers across multiple states participated in the inaugural event. Volunteers were encouraged to take photos of their cleaning efforts and post them on social media. As the celebration's creator and official host, the Pomeroy Foundation curated a photo gallery and shared it on social media.

Drinking in Colonial America (Part 1)

 In the early years of European settlement in the New World, alcohol wasn't just a beverage of choice - it was intricately woven into the very fabric of colonial American society. From morning drams to evening toddies, drinking permeated every aspect of daily life for the English, Dutch, French and Spanish colonists.

The roots of this thirsty cultural necessity can be traced back across the Atlantic. Europeans had imbibed alcoholic drinks for centuries, with beer, wine, and spirits like gin flowing freely. This drinking heritage was packed into the trunks of the first settlers who viewed alcohol as a wise ration based on its caloric value and perceived health benefits.

Upon their arrival in America, the colonists wasted no time in establishing breweries, distilleries and taverns to recreate their favorite potent potables. Local ingredients like corn, molasses and fruit were quickly tapped to produce beer, cider, wine and spirits satisfying those cravings from the old country. By the 1700s, rum production had become a massive colonial industry, fueled by the infamous Triangle Trade.

Alcohol consumption wasn't just for quenching thirst - it was deeply ingrained into colonial culture at every level. A typical day started with a dram of rum or whiskey for breakfast, while hard cider frequently accompanied other meals. Breaks for "grog" were built into the working schedules on farms, construction sites and trades like printing and blacksmithing.

When the English raised their mugs for a toast, ale and porter were the patriotic brews of choice. The fashionable among Boston's elite sipped Madeira wine imported from Portugal. Down south, fruity peach brandy was the spirit that stirred Virginia's gentility. Regional pride flowed from colonial taps and stills.

Taverns, those boozy ancestors of the modern bar, were the throbbing social hubs of city and rural life. The odd characters, raucous melees, and smoke-filled accommodations romanticized by authors like Washington Irving made these spaces the original nightlife scene. Politics were hashed out over ale mugs, cards were played for rum and lodgers slept three bunkmates across.

Mount Vernon Whiskey Still

Some of the most iconic drinks enjoyed by modern Americans trace their origins back to early colonial days. Sippable, creamy flips were the decadent coffee house beverages of the 1700s. The syllabub, a fizzy blend of cider and frothy eggs, was an exotic English import adapted with local fruits and wines. Even the boozy punch that became the calling card of colonial hospitality traces its roots to the Sanskrit word "panch" meaning five ingredients - spirits, citrus, sugar, water and spice.

Of course, overconsumption was widespread, with public drunkenness and alcoholism prevalent realities of colonial life. Ministers like the famous doctor Benjamin Rush railed against the dangers of excessive tippling. But for the most part, alcohol was an accepted daily indulgence, governing both cultural identity and social norms.

 So while the flame of independence may have been fueled by fiery revolutionary rhetoric, it likely had a few spirited drinks to fan its initial spark. Colonial drinking traditions not only reveal the very character of America's founding ancestors, but also their perseverance in crafting a new society carved from the woods and fields of an uncharted continent. Their tavern mugs brimmed with more than just ale - they embodied the pioneering spirit that shaped a nation.

See Part 2 - Drinking in Colonial America (Part 2): The Potent Potables

 

Drinking in Colonial America (Part 2): The Potent Potables

 

While the cultural significance of alcohol in colonial society is undeniable, it's also intriguing to look at the very drinks that allowed those early Americans to while away their evenings and toast their new nation. The ingenuity of colonial drinking traditions gave birth to some iconic and decidedly potent potables.

Flip
No drink better embodied colonial America's zest for combining flavors and delivering a punch than Flip. This frothy concoction blended beer, rum, molasses or pumpkin, and eggs which were mixed vigorously with a red-hot "flip dog" or loggerhead poker fresh from the fire. The resulting drink had layers of smoky, sweet, and creamy flavors that delighted colonial palates. Tavern keepers each put their own spin on Flip's name and recipe, with names like "Yard of Flannel" or "Bellows-Stop" hinting at its hearty nature.

Stone Fence  
For a straightforward colonial refresher, you couldn't go wrong with a Stone Fence - a simple blending of hard cider and rum. Its origins likely hail from the Colonial-era practice of using cider as a cost-effective way to stretch limited rum supplies. The resulting beverage perfectly complemented the robust, fruity flavors of that era's ciders.

Syllabub
When colonists wanted a taste of home, they turned to an English drinking tradition - the Syllabub. A mixture of wine or cider with cream and egg whites, this drink was the era's version of a milkshake. But it packed an alcoholic punch along with the silky texture provided by the whipped egg whites. Maple syrup could substitute for sweetener, adding colonial Virginia's finest ingredient.

Rattle-Skull
With a name that evoked the morning-after foggy effects, the Rattle-Skull was not for the faint of heart or weak of constitution. Darkly hued with layers of porter beer, it combined equal parts rum and brandy fortified with a squeeze of lime and a flurry of nutmeg on top. Colonial barkeeps recognized this equal-parts philosophy made for a seriously potent drink.

Sangaree  
A proto-sangria of sorts, the Sangaree originated in England before finding great favor in the West Indies and American colonies. Rather than today's Spanish red wines, fortified wines like Madeira or port formed the base, accented with lemon, sugar, and nutmeg. This spirited punch perfectly suited the colonial upper class looking for elegant sipping drinks.

While crude by today's standards, these colonial drinks showcase the incredible resourcefulness and adventurous palates of early Americans. Lacking many of the modern spirits, wines, and ingredients we now enjoy, they made do by blending what was locally available - beer, rum, hard cider, unrefined sugars and dairy. The resulting potables may taste shockingly rudimentary to us now, but they were beacons of hard-won colonial ingenuity.

So let's raise a modern glass and toast those thirsty, spirited ancestors and their inherently American drinks borne of tenacity, necessity, and joie de vivre. For it was their rambunctious zeal for cobbling together decidedly potent potables that helped fuel the revolutionary spirit! Cheers to the Colonial cocktail pioneers!

Camden – 25 April 1781

On the morning of April 25, 1781, General Nathanael Greene and his army were camped on Hobkirk’s Hill, about a mile and a half outside of Camden, South Carolina, where a British garrison commanded by Francis Lord Rawdon was posted. Rawdon’s force was outnumbered by almost two to one, but when an American deserter informed Rawdon that Greene’s force had no artillery, Rawdon made the bold decision to attack.

After the Battle of Guilford Courthouse on March 15, Cornwallis had withdrawn his army to Wilmington to refit and resupply. At first Greene pursued him, before deciding to turn toward South Carolina, assuming Cornwallis would follow him. But Cornwallis would not take the bait, having already decided to march to Virginia, where an appointment with destiny was awaiting him. Nevertheless, Greene decided to continue to South Carolina, hoping to recapture the state. To achieve that goal, Rawdon’s force at Camden was the first obstacle he would have to overcome.

Greene’s pickets discovered the British as they advanced, and Rawdon lost the element of surprise. He was also disappointed to find that Greene did indeed have artillery, it having been brought up between the time the deserter fled and the time Rawdon arrived.

With over 1500 men and three pieces of artillery, Greene deployed his army for battle, facing Rawdon’s force of about 900, with no artillery. As the British were stubbornly advancing up Hobkirk’s Hill, Greene ordered his men to attack, intending to envelope both British flanks, while attacking their center with a bayonet charge. Meanwhile, he sent Colonel William Washington and his cavalry on a sweeping ride around the British and into their rear. The Americans seemed to be on the verge of overwhelming Rawdon and his men.

But as the American line charged down the hill the 1st Maryland Infantry on Greene’s right fell into confusion. One company of the Marylanders had hesitated after their commanding officer was killed and their disorder soon spread to the rest of the regiment. The regiment’s commander, Col. John Gunby, pulled the men back in order to reform his line. Seeing the Americans withdrawing, Rawdon ordered a charge, and the American line collapsed, sparking a full retreat. Meanwhile, although Washington’s cavalry had successfully gained the British rear, they were so delayed by dealing with their prisoners that they didn’t make it onto the battlefield in time to prevent the rout.

Rawdon’s force wasn’t large enough to capitalize on the victory, however. He left a small occupying force on Hobkirk’s Hill (which Washington’s cavalry soon dispersed) and took the rest of his men back to Camden. Two weeks later, outnumbered, outflanked, and at risk of being trapped, Rawdon abandoned Camden and retreated toward Charleston.

Like the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, and like two more battles to come in South Carolina, while the British technically won the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill, Greene and his army achieved their strategic goal. As Greene would put it, “We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again.”

1 The 1898 illustration by F.C. Yohn depicts a charge by Washington’s cavalry to cover the American retreat.

From  A Daily Dose of the American Revolution https://www.facebook.com/100082948371895/posts/667590416015898/?rdid=ZYCeMjpu4iFuIt1O

Your Ancestors’ World – Unlocking Family History Through Historical Context

Family history isn’t just about names and dates on a tree, it’s about lives lived in complex worlds. Genealogy as a journey into the layered realities of our ancestors, urging readers to step into their shoes and see the world through their eyes.

By defining historical context as the backdrop of life, the social norms, economic conditions, political climates, and cultural shifts that shaped everyday choices. Without this context, ancestors remain flat figures; with it, they become vivid characters in a living story.

An ancestor story unfolds like peeling an onion:

• At the core are personal circumstances - jobs, homes, relationships.
• Around that lies the local community - economies, gossip, hierarchies.
• Beyond are regional events - natural disasters, political movements, cultural trends.
• Finally, the national and global stage - wars, pandemics, technological revolutions.

Each layer interacts, weaving a web of influence that explains why ancestors moved, married, struggled, or thrived.

Context is not just color; it’s a research tool. Knowing tuberculosis was once called “consumption” changes how we interpret death records. Recognizing a flood in a hometown may lead to newspaper archives that mention family names. Context helps distinguish between two John Smiths, reveals migration patterns, and explains gaps in records.

You are encouraged to use strategies like building timelines, studying local histories, analyzing maps, and exploring laws, literature, and photographs. Records, it reminds us, are part of larger processes—probate files, land deeds, or marriage licenses often connect to broader trails of documents that enrich the story.

You should also be aware of pitfalls: projecting modern values onto the past, ignoring local customs, or overlooking the impact of major events. It urges humility, reminding us that “the past is a foreign country.”

Finally, resources such as newspapers, archives, maps, academic studies, oral histories, and even social media groups—that can breathe life into research. The transformative power of historical context lies in turning genealogy into storytelling: ancestors become protagonists in sagas of resilience, choice, and change. In the end, genealogy is not just about knowing who they were. It’s about understanding them, and through them, ourselves.

American Exceptionalism: The Founding Principles of a Nation Born Free

As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence, we confront a question that has captivated philosophers, statesmen, and patriots for generations: What makes America different? Is there something truly exceptional about the United States—something woven into the very fabric of our founding that sets us apart from every other nation in human history?

The answer, rooted in the wisdom of our Founders and confirmed by the testimony of keen observers across centuries, is a resounding yes. America is exceptional—not because Americans are superior people, but because America was founded on exceptional principles. Understanding American exceptionalism is essential to preserving what makes this nation unique, and to ensuring that the blessings of liberty endure for generations yet unborn.

In the Beginning, All the World Was America

In 1689, English philosopher John Locke penned a curious phrase in his Second Treatise of Government: "Thus in the beginning all the world was America."

Locke was writing about the state of nature—a theoretical condition where humans lived before the formation of organized government and civil society. To Locke, America represented something unprecedented: vast open lands where individuals could own property through their own labor, where no hereditary aristocracy claimed dominion, where no king asserted divine right to rule, and where the fundamental equality of all men could find practical expression.

Locke's philosophy would profoundly shape the American founding. His ideas about natural rights—that all individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property—became the philosophical bedrock upon which the Declaration of Independence was written. His concept that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, rather than from hereditary succession or conquest, became the cornerstone of American constitutional democracy.

America, in Locke's imagination and eventually in historical reality, became the place where these principles could flourish without the encumbrances of feudalism, monarchy, and rigid class hierarchy. It was, as he suggested, what the whole world had been like "in the beginning"—before the corruptions of concentrated power and hereditary privilege took hold.

Born Equal, Not Forced to Become So

Nearly a century and a half after Locke wrote, French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville traveled across America observing its young democracy. In his masterwork Democracy in America (1835-1840), Tocqueville made a profound observation about what distinguished American democracy from European revolutions:

"The great advantage of the Americans is that they have arrived at a state of democracy without having to endure a democratic revolution; and that they are born equal, instead of becoming so."

This distinction is crucial to understanding American exceptionalism. In Europe, democracy came through violent revolution against entrenched aristocracies. The French Revolution, for instance, sought to tear down centuries of feudal hierarchy through bloodshed and terror. European nations had to become equal through fierce struggle against established orders of nobles, clergy, and kings.

Americans, by contrast, were "born equal" in the sense that colonial society lacked the rigid feudal structures of the Old World. There was no hereditary nobility in America, no bishops claiming temporal power, no tradition of serfdom. While colonial America certainly had social distinctions and (tragically) slavery in some regions, it lacked the entrenched aristocratic class system that defined European society. Americans began with relative equality of social condition and built their institutions from that foundation.

The American Revolution was not a social revolution aimed at overthrowing an internal social order. It was a political revolution aimed at securing self-government and protecting the rights that colonists believed they already possessed as free-born Englishmen. The Declaration of Independence did not call for the redistribution of wealth or the destruction of social classes—it called for recognition of natural rights and the establishment of government by consent.

The Liberal Tradition: A Consensus Forged in Freedom

In the mid-20th century, political scientist Louis Hartz offered perhaps the most penetrating analysis of American exceptionalism in his classic work The Liberal Tradition in America (1955). Hartz asked a haunting question:

"Can a people 'born equal' ever understand peoples elsewhere that have to become so? Can it ever understand itself?"

Hartz's central thesis was that America developed a distinctive liberal consensus—rooted in Lockean principles of individual liberty, limited government, and private property—precisely because it lacked a feudal past. Without an aristocracy to overthrow, Americans never developed the class consciousness or socialist movements that characterized European political development. Without a conservative feudal order to react against, Americans never developed European-style radicalism.

The result was a political culture that, despite robust debate and conflict, operates almost entirely within the boundaries of what Hartz called "liberal consensus." Both American conservatives and American liberals, in Hartz's analysis, are fundamentally Lockean liberals who believe in constitutional government, individual rights, and limited state power. The disagreements are over the degree of government intervention, not over whether individual liberty is the fundamental value worth protecting.

This consensus, according to Hartz, remains largely invisible to Americans precisely because it is so pervasive and uncontested. Fish don't notice the water they swim in; Americans don't notice their Lockean liberalism because virtually everyone shares it.

Hartz worried that a people "born equal" might struggle to understand peoples elsewhere who must fight to "become so"—that Americans' experience of liberty as a birthright rather than a hard-won achievement might blind them to the difficulty of establishing democracy in societies shaped by different historical forces.

The Principles That Make America Exceptional

What, then, are the core features of American exceptionalism rooted in our founding?

1. Natural Rights and Human Equality

The Declaration of Independence proclaims: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This was not merely rhetorical flourish. It was a revolutionary claim: that rights do not come from government, kings, or constitutions, but from the Creator Himself. Governments exist to secure these rights, not to grant them. This principle places the individual—not the state, not the collective, not the monarch—at the center of political life.

The self-evident truth of human equality does not mean that all people have equal talents, equal wealth, or equal outcomes. It means that all people possess equal dignity before God and equal rights before the law. No person has a natural right to rule over another without consent. No aristocracy can claim superiority by birth. No government can legitimately violate the natural rights of individuals.

2. Popular Sovereignty and Consent of the Governed

The Declaration continues: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This principle overturned millennia of political tradition. Throughout most of human history, governments claimed authority through conquest, divine right, or hereditary succession. The American Founders asserted that legitimate government authority comes from one source only: the consent of the people.

This was not democracy in the pure sense of majority rule—the Founders deliberately created a constitutional republic with checks and balances, federalism, and protection for minority rights. But it was government of, by, and for the people—not government by elites claiming superior wisdom or nobility claiming superior blood.

3. Limited Government and Constitutional Order

The Constitution established a government of enumerated powers, with authority carefully divided among three branches and between federal and state governments. The Bill of Rights explicitly protected individual liberties against government encroachment.

This constitutional structure reflected a profound insight: government power, though necessary for securing rights and maintaining order, is inherently dangerous and must be carefully constrained. The separation of powers, federalism, and explicit protections for individual liberty were not accidents—they were deliberate safeguards against the concentration of power that had oppressed humanity throughout history.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

4. Individual Liberty and Free Enterprise

American exceptionalism embraces the principle that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness, build their own businesses, worship according to their own conscience, speak their own minds, and live their own lives—so long as they do not infringe on the equal rights of others.

This commitment to individual liberty extended to economic freedom. The American founding generation understood that private property and free enterprise were not merely economic arrangements but essential bulwarks of liberty. As John Adams observed, "Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."

Unlike European societies where economic life was heavily regulated by guilds, monopolies, and royal charters, America offered relative economic freedom. This openness to entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic opportunity became a defining feature of American life and a magnet for immigrants seeking a better future.

5. A City Upon a Hill: Purpose and Mission

American exceptionalism includes a sense of national purpose—an understanding that America has a special role in advancing liberty and human dignity in the world. This concept dates to the earliest days of European settlement.

In 1630, Puritan leader John Winthrop preached to his fellow colonists aboard the Arbella: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."

This vision of America as an example to the world—not through conquest or coercion, but through the power of its ideals—has animated American history from the Revolution through the present day. Abraham Lincoln called America "the last best hope of earth." Ronald Reagan spoke of America as "a shining city on a hill."

The concept does not imply American perfection or moral superiority. Rather, it reflects a belief that America's founding principles—if faithfully upheld—offer a model of ordered liberty worth preserving and, when appropriate, worth sharing with those who seek to escape tyranny.

Why American Exceptionalism Matters Today

Understanding American exceptionalism is not an exercise in national vanity. It is essential to preserving the republic our Founders created.

First, it reminds us that America's founding principles are not arbitrary social constructs but reflections of timeless truths about human nature and human rights. The self-evident truths of the Declaration are not subject to revision by passing political majorities. They are the fixed stars by which we navigate.

Second, it helps us recognize that American liberty is rare and precious. The human default throughout history has been tyranny, not freedom. The combination of limited government, constitutional order, natural rights, and popular sovereignty that characterizes American democracy did not arise naturally—it was consciously designed by men who understood both human nature and political philosophy. It must be consciously preserved.

Third, it gives us a standard by which to judge our national actions. When we fall short of our founding ideals—as we certainly have at times in our history—American exceptionalism provides the moral framework for calling ourselves back to our better angels. The civil rights movement, for instance, did not reject American exceptionalism; it demanded that America live up to the promise of the Declaration that "all men are created equal."

Fourth, it offers hope for the future. If America's greatness stems not from ethnicity, geography, or historic accident, but from adherence to universal principles of liberty and human dignity, then these principles can be preserved and renewed in each generation. American exceptionalism is not a birthright automatically inherited—it is a legacy that must be defended, a torch that must be carried forward.

Answering the Critics

Some argue that American exceptionalism is mere nationalism or ethnocentrism dressed up in philosophical language. They point to American failings—from slavery to segregation to foreign policy mistakes—as evidence that America is no different from any other nation.

These criticisms misunderstand what American exceptionalism actually claims. It does not claim that Americans are perfect people or that American history is without stain. It claims that America was founded on exceptional principles—and that when America has erred, it has been in departing from those principles, not in adhering to them.

Slavery was a profound contradiction of the Declaration's assertion that all men are created equal—a contradiction that Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists forcefully pointed out. Segregation violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under law. These were failures to live up to American ideals, not failures of American ideals.

The self-correcting mechanism of American exceptionalism is that our founding principles provide the moral ground for calling out and correcting our national sins. As Frederick Douglass observed, even while slavery existed, "The Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT." The principles were sound even when the practice fell short.

Others argue that emphasizing American exceptionalism leads to arrogance in foreign policy or a disregard for other nations' perspectives. This concern has merit to the extent that any good principle can be perverted. But properly understood, American exceptionalism should lead to humility, not arrogance.

If America's exceptional character comes from its founding principles rather than from American people being inherently superior, then we should be humble about our own worthiness to carry this legacy forward. If our principles are universal truths applicable to all humanity, then we should respect the dignity and rights of all peoples, not just Americans. And if our role is to be "a city on a hill"—a model rather than an empire—then we should lead through example and persuasion rather than through force.

Understanding of American Exceptionalism

American exceptionalism is inseparable from several core convictions:

Reverence for the Founders' wisdom. The men who drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not perfect, but they were students of history and political philosophy who understood human nature and designed a system of government that has endured longer than virtually any other democratic constitution. Their wisdom should be respected and their principles preserved.

Commitment to limited government. The American founding created a government of enumerated powers, with most authority reserved to states and individuals. American exceptionalism is threatened when government expands beyond its constitutional limits, when federal bureaucracy grows unchecked, and when individual liberty is sacrificed for collective goals.

Defense of traditional values. The American founding assumed a virtuous citizenry capable of self-government. As John Adams famously wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." American exceptionalism depends not just on sound institutions but on citizens who embrace personal responsibility, moral conduct, and civic virtue.

Appreciation for American achievements. While acknowledging failures and shortcomings, conservatives recognize that America has been a force for tremendous good in the world. We defeated fascism and communism in the 20th century, we pioneered innovations that raised living standards globally, we provided a beacon of hope for immigrants seeking freedom and opportunity, and we demonstrated that limited government and free markets can produce both liberty and prosperity.

Resolve to preserve the American legacy. American exceptionalism is not guaranteed. It can be lost through ignorance, apathy, or deliberate rejection of founding principles. Conservatives understand that each generation has a duty to study, teach, defend, and transmit American ideals to the next generation.

Conclusion: The Promise and the Challenge

As we stand at the 250th anniversary of American independence, we face a crucial question: Will we preserve the exceptional character of the American republic?

The answer depends on whether we, like the generations before us, will commit ourselves to the principles the Founders proclaimed in 1776. It depends on whether we will maintain limited government, protect individual liberty, uphold constitutional order, and defend the natural rights of all people. It depends on whether we will be worthy stewards of the legacy we have inherited.

John Locke saw in America a glimpse of the world as it was "in the beginning"—a place of possibility and freedom. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at a people "born equal" who built a democracy without violent revolution. Louis Hartz analyzed the liberal tradition that made America unique among nations.

Each of these thinkers recognized something genuine and profound: America represents an extraordinary experiment in human liberty, founded on universal principles, sustained by constitutional order, and animated by a sense of purpose larger than mere national interest.

American exceptionalism is real. It is rooted in our founding principles. It has been tested by trial and tragedy. And it remains, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "the last best hope of earth."

The question before us is not whether America has been exceptional—the historical record clearly demonstrates that it has. The question is whether we will keep it so.

As Benjamin Franklin reportedly replied when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Keeping the republic means preserving American exceptionalism—not as a matter of pride, but as a matter of principle. It means understanding what makes America different, cherishing what makes America great, and defending what makes America worth preserving.

In Patriotic Service,
Joseph Greer Chapter, TNSSAR

---

Sources and Further Reading

Primary Sources:

• John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689), Section 49: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
• Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume 2, Book 2, Chapter 3: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America/Volume_2/Book_2/Chapter_3
• Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (1955)
• The Declaration of Independence (1776)
• The Constitution of the United States (1787)

Secondary Sources:

• "John Locke on Property and the Formation of Societies," Lumen Learning: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-classicreadings/chapter/john-locke-on-property-and-the-formation-of-societies/
• "Locke's American Wasteland," The 18th-Century Common (April 2018): https://www.18thcenturycommon.org/lockes-american-wasteland/
• "Tocqueville and America," The Great Thinkers (August 2014): https://thegreatthinkers.org/tocqueville/commentary/tocqueville-and-america/
• Encyclopedia.com entry on Louis Hartz: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/hartz-louis
• Wikipedia, "Louis Hartz": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Hartz
• University of Oregon, "US Political Thought, Lecture 2" (on Hartz): https://pages.uoregon.edu/jboland/lect_2.html

Additional Recommended Reading:

• Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (1974)
• Thomas G. West, The Political Theory of the American Founding (2017)
• Charles R. Kesler, I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism (2012)
• Wilfred M. McClay, Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story (2019)
• Mark David Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding? (2019)

 The Prankster and the Astrologer: Jonathan Swift's Legendary Hoax

In light of 1 April Fool’s Day, I have included the following article of colonial pranksters which may find funny.

-          Rick

In the winter of 1708, London's streets buzzed with an extraordinary prediction. A previously unknown astrologer named Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire, had published an almanac boldly forecasting the death of John Partridge—one of England's most prominent astrologers—on March 29 at precisely 11 p.m. from "a raging fever." What followed became one of history's most elaborate and consequential pranks, a masterwork of satire that would span months, destroy a career, and cement its creator's reputation as a master of April Fools' Day mischief.

The Master Satirist and His Target

Jonathan Swift, later famous as the author of Gulliver's Travels, was already known in 18th-century London for his razor-sharp political commentary and biting social satire. April Fools' Day was widely reported to be Swift's favorite holiday, and he frequently used it "to make sin and folly bleed" through his satirical wit.

His target, John Partridge, was no minor figure. As the most prominent almanac-maker of the early 18th century, Partridge published the widely-read Merlinus Almanac, filled with astrological predictions for the coming year. Almanacs were the most popular form of literature at the time, and Partridge's position as a leading astrologer and physician went largely unchallenged among a London society eager to find order and meaning in the world.

What drew Swift's ire was Partridge's attack on the Church of England. In his 1708 almanac, Partridge sarcastically referred to the church as "infallible"—a jab that the devout Anglican cleric Swift could not ignore. Swift's response would be devastating.

Act One: The Prediction

In January or February 1708, Swift published Predictions for the Year 1708 under the pseudonym Isaac Bickerstaff, presenting himself as a reform-minded astrologer determined "to prevent People from being further Impos'd on by Vulgar Almanack Makers." The pamphlet contained various predictions, but one stood out with calculated nonchalance.

"My first prediction is but a trifle," Swift wrote, "yet I will mention it, to show how ignorant those sottish pretenders to astrology are in their own concerns. It relates to Partridge, the almanack-maker. I have consulted the stars of his nativity by my own rules, and find he will infallibly die upon the 29th of March next, about eleven at night, of a raging fever; therefore, I advise him to consider of it, and settle his affairs in time."

The prediction caused a sensation. Londoners were both shocked and amused by this bold claim. Partridge himself responded immediately with fierce indignation, publishing his own pamphlet: Squire Bickerstaff Detected; or, The Astrological Impostor Convicted. He declared Bickerstaff a fraud and predicted that "the End of March will plainly show the Cheat."

Act Two: The Death Announcement

On the evening of March 29—the very date Swift had predicted—an elegantly printed, black-bordered elegy appeared on London's streets announcing Partridge's death. According to this broadside, Bickerstaff had visited Partridge on his deathbed, where the dying astrologer confessed to being a fraud who had only written predictions to support his family.

Within hours, on March 30 or 31, another pamphlet circulated: The Accomplishment of the First of Mr. Bickerstaff's Predictions. This time Swift wrote not as Bickerstaff but as an anonymous "man employed in the Revenue," an independent witness confirming the astrologer's demise. The account noted that Bickerstaff's timing had been off by almost four hours—Partridge had died at 7:05 p.m. rather than 11 p.m.—but otherwise the prediction had been remarkably accurate.

Given the slow speed at which news traveled in 1708, word of Partridge's death became generally known throughout London on April 1—April Fools' Day.

Act Three: The Living Dead Man

On the morning of April 1, John Partridge—very much alive—awoke to discover he was officially dead. A sexton knocked at his window asking about arrangements for his funeral sermon. As he walked through London's streets, acquaintances stared at him in shock or stopped him to remark how much he resembled their deceased friend John Partridge. An undertaker appeared at his door to arrange funeral drapes.

Accounts vary, but mourners reportedly kept him awake at night crying outside his window. Some sources claim a gravestone was even carved. The hoax had taken on a life of its own.

Act Four: The Vindication

Enraged, Partridge published pamphlets insisting he was alive. Swift, still writing as Bickerstaff, responded with devastating logic in A Vindication of Isaac Bickerstaff (1709). He argued that Partridge was obviously dead because "no man alive ever writ such damn'd stuff" as appeared in Partridge's almanacs. He noted that Partridge's own wife had been heard swearing "her husband had neither life nor soul in him."

Swift even addressed the objection that Partridge continued publishing almanacs after his death, coolly observing that "Gadbury, Poor Robin, Dove, Wing, and several others, do yearly publish their almanacks, though several of them have been dead since before the Revolution."

The Aftermath

The hoax succeeded beyond Swift's wildest expectations. The Company of Stationers, which controlled publishing rights, applied to the Lord Chancellor for exclusive rights to continue publishing "Partridge's Almanac"—and were granted this right despite Partridge himself appearing in court to protest. As one scholar noted, as an almanac-maker, Partridge was now truly "dead."

By 1710, Partridge was thoroughly discredited as both astrologer and physician. He stopped publishing his almanacs, his career effectively destroyed by Swift's elaborate prank. The irony was complete: the astrologer who claimed to predict the future had been undone by a fake prediction about himself.

Partridge did eventually die—around 1714 or 1715—putting Swift's prediction off by approximately 62,000 hours, "the blink of an eye on fate's great cosmic scale," as one writer noted.

The Legacy

The Bickerstaff hoax became so famous that essayists Richard Steele and Joseph Addison adopted the Isaac Bickerstaff persona for their influential periodical The Tatler in 1709. The character lived on in English literature, inspiring writers from Benjamin Franklin to H.P. Lovecraft, who used the pseudonym "Isaac Bickerstaffe, Jr." in 1914 to refute an astrologer's predictions in a Rhode Island newspaper.

Swift's elaborate prank demonstrated the power of satire and the dangers of credulity. It revealed how easily public opinion could be manipulated—and how difficult it was to disprove a well-constructed lie, even when the "victim" stood before everyone alive and well.

More than three centuries later, the Bickerstaff-Partridge affair remains one of the greatest April Fools' pranks in history—a masterclass in sustained satirical performance that destroyed one man's career while cementing another's reputation as a literary genius and the undisputed master of All Fools' Day.

---

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Bickerstaff
• https://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_predictions_of_isaac_bickerstaff
• https://theamericanreader.com/all-fools-day-1708-jonathan-swift-kills-off-john-partridge/
•  
• https://www.damninteresting.com/the-extraordinary-astrologer-isaac-bickerstaff/
• https://muse.jhu.edu/article/431793/summary
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1090/1090-h/1090-h.htm

https://historyguild.org/april-fools-the-history-behind-the-worlds-greatest-day-of-pranks/