Information

Monday July 5, 1787 - History


In Convention, —Mr. GERRY delivered in, from the Committee appointed on Monday last, the following Report:

" The Committee to whom was referred the eighth Resolution of the Report from the Committee of the Whole House, and so much of the seventh as has not been decided on, submit the following Report:

" That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall he generally adopted.

" 1. That in the first branah of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed one member for every forty thousand inhabitants, of the description reported in the seventh Resolution of the Committee of the Whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed one member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the salaries of the officers of the Government of the United States, shall originate in the first branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the second branch; and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations to be originated in the first branah.

" 2. That in the second branah, esah State shall have an equal vote."

Mr. GORHAM observed, that, as the report consisted of propositions mutually conditional, he wished to hear some explanations touching the grounds on which the conditions were estimated.

Mr. GERRY. The Committee were of different opinions, as well as the Deputations from which the Committee were taken; and agreed to the Report merely in order that some ground of accommodation might be proposed. Those opposed to the equality of votes have only assented conditionally; and if the other side do not generally agree, will not be under any obligation to support the Report.

Mr. WILSON thought the Committee had exceeded their powers.

Mr. MARTIN was for taking the question on the whole Report.

Mr. WILSON was for a division of the question; otherwise it would be a leap in the dark.

Mr. MADISON aould not regard the privilege of originating money hills as any concession on the side of the small States. Experience proved that it had no effeat. If even States in the upper branah wished a bill to be originated, they might surely find some member from some of tile same States in the lower branch, who would originate it. The restriction as to amendments was of as little consequence. Amendments could be handed privately by tile Senate to members in the other House. Bills could be negatived, that they might be sent up in the desired shape. If the Senate should yield to the obstinacy of the first branch, the use of that body as a check, would be lost. If the first branch should yield to that of the Senate, the privilege would be nugatory. Experienae had also shown, both in Great Britain, and the States having a similar regulation, that it was a source of frequent and obstinate altercations. These considerations had produced a rejeation of a like motion on a former ocassion, when judged by its own merits. It could not, therefore, be deemed any concession on the present, and left in force all the objections which had prevailed against allowing each State an equal voice. He conceived that the Convention was reduced to the alternative, of either departing from justice in order to conciliate the smaller States, and the minority of the people of the United States, or of displeasing these, by justly gratifying the larger States and the majority of the people. He could not himself hesitate as to the option he ought to make. The Convention, with justice and a majority of the people on their side, had nothing to fear. With injustice and the minority on their side, they had every thing to fear. It was in vain to purahase concord in the Convention on terms which would perpetuate discord among their constituents. The Convention ought to pursue a plan which would bear the test of examination, which would be espoused and supported by the enlightened and impartial part of America, and which they could themselves vindicate and urge. It should be considered, that, although at first many may judge of the system recommended by their opinion of the Convention, yet finally all will judge of the Convention by the system. The merits of the system alone can finally I and effectually obtain the public suffrage. He was not apprehensive that the people of the small States would obstinately refuse to accede to a government founded on just principles, and promising them substantial protection. He could not suspeat that Delaware would brave the consequences of seeking her fortunes apart from the other States, rather than submit to such a Government; much less could he suspeat that she would pursue the rash policy, of courting foreign support, which the warmth of one of her Representatives (Mr. BEDFORD) had suggested; or if she should, that any foreign nation would be so rash as to hearken to the overture. As little could he suspect that the people of New Jersey, notwithstanding the decided tone of the gentleman from that State, would choose rather to stand on their own legs, and bid defiance to events, than to acquiesce under an establishment founded on principles the justice of which they could not dispute, and absolutely necessary to redeem them from the exactions levied on them by the commerce of the neighbouring States. A review of other States would prove that there was as little reason to apprehend an inflexible opposition elsewhere. Harmony in the Convention was, no doubt, much to be desired. Satisfaction to all the States, in the first instance, still more so. But if the principal States comprehending a majority of the people of the United States, should concur in a just and judicious plan, he had the firmest hopes that all the other States would by degrees accede to it.

Mr. BUTLER said, he could not let down his idea of the people of America so far as to believe they would, from mere respect to the Convention, adopt a plan evidently unjust. He did not consider the privilege concerning money bills as of any consequence. He urged, that the second branch ought to represent the States according to their property.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS thought the form as well as the master of the Report objectionable. It seemed, in the first place, to render amendment impracticable. In the next place, it seemed to involve a pledge to agree to the second part, if the first should be agreed to. He conceived the whole aspect of it to be wrong. He came here as a Representative of America; he flattered himself he came here in some degree as a Representative of the whole human race; for the whole human race will be affected by the proceedings of this Convention. He wished gentlemen to extend their views beyond the present moment of time; beyond the narrow limits of place from which they derive their political origin. If he were to believe some things which he had heard, he should suppose that we were assembled to truck aud bargain for our particular States. He cannot descend to think that any gentlemen are really actuated by these views. We must look forward to the effects of what we do. These alone ought to guide us. Much has been said of the sentiments of the people. They were unknown. They could not be known. All that we can infer is, that, if the plan we recommend be reasonable and right, all who have reasonable minds and sound intentions will embrace it, notwithstanding what had been said by some gentlemen. Let us suppose that the larger States shall agree, and that the smaller refuse; and let us trace the consequences. The opponents of the system in the smaller States will no doubt make a party, and a noise for a time, but the ties of interest, of kindred, and of common habits, which connect them with other States, will be too strong to be easily broken. In New Jersey, particularly, he was sure a great many would follow the sentiments of Pennsylvania and New York. This country must be united. If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will. He begged this consideration might have its due weight. The scenes of horror attending civil commotion cannot be described; and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance. The stronger party will then make traitors of the weaker; and the gallows and halter will finish the work of the sword. How far foreign powers would be ready to take part in the confusions, he would not say. Threats that they will be invited have, it seems, been thrown out. He drew the melancholy picture of foreign intrusions, as exhibited in the history of Germany, and urged it as a standing lesson to other nations. He trusted that the gentlemen who may have hazarded such expressions did not entertain them till they reached their own lips. But returning to the Report, he could not think it in any respect calculated for the public good. As the second branch is now constituted, there will be constant disputes and appeals to the States, which will undermine the General Government, and control and annihilate the first branch. Suppose that the Delegates from Massachusetts and Rhode Island, in the upper house, disagree, and that the former are outvoted. What results? They will immediately declare that their State will not abide by the decision, and make such representations as will produce that effect. The same may happen as to Virginia and other States. Of what avail, then, will be what is on paper? State attachments, and State importance have been the bane of this country. We cannot annihilate, but we may perhaps take out the teeth of, the serpents. He wished our ideas to be enlarged to the true interest of man, instead of being circumscribed within the narrow compass of a particular spot. And, after all, how little can be the motive yielded by selfishness for such a policy? Who can say, whether he himself, much less whether his children, will the next year be an inhabitant of this or that State?

Mr. BEDFORD. He found that what he had said, as to the small States being taken by the hand, had been misunderstood, —and he rose to explain. He did not mean that the small States would court the aid and interposition of foreign powers. He meant that they would not consider the federal compact as dissolved until it should be so by the acts of the large States. In this case, the consequence of the breach of faith on their part, and the readiness of the small States to furfil their engagements, would be that foreign nations having demands on this Country, would find it their interest to take the small States by the hand, in order to do themselves justice. This was what he meant. But no man can forsee to what extremities the small States may be driven by oppression. He observed, also, in apology, that some allowance ought to be made, for the habits of his profession, in which warmth was natural and sometimes necessary. But is there not an apology in what was said by (Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS), that the sword is to unite—by Mr. GORHAM, that Delaware must be annexed to Pennsylvania, and New Jersey divided between Pennsylvania and New York? To hear such language without emotion, would be to renounce tile feelings of a man and the duty of a citizen. As to the propositions of the Committee, the lesser States have thought it necessary to have a security somewhere. This has been thought necessary for the Executive magistrate of the proposed government, who has a sort of negative on the laws; and is it not of more importance that the States should be protected, than that the Executive branch of the Government should be protected? In order to obtain this, the smaller States have conceded as to the constitution of the first branch, and as to money bills. If they be not gratified by correspondent concessions, as to the second branch, is it to be supposed they will ever accede to the plan? And what will be the consequence, if nothing should be done? The condition of the United States require that something should be immediately done. It will be better that a defective plan should be adopted, than that none should be recommended. He saw no reason why defects might not be supplied by meetings ten, fifteen or twenty years hence.

Mr. ELLSWORTH said, he had not attended the proceedings of the Committee, but was ready to accede to the compromise they had reported. Some compromise was necessary; and he saw none more convenient or reasonable.

Mr. WILLIAMSON hoped that the expressions of individuals would not be taken for the sense of their colleagues much less of their States, which was not and could not be known. He hoped, also, that the meaning of those expressions would not be misconstrued or exaggerated. He did not conceive that (Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS) meant that the sword ought to be drawn against the smaller Statee. He only pointed out the probable consequences of anarchy in the United States. A similar exposition ought to be given of the expressions of (Mr. GORHAM). He was ready to hear the Report discussed; but thought the propositions contained in it the most objectionable of any he had yet heard.

Mr. PATTERSON said that he had, when the report agreed to in the Committee, reserved to himself the right of freely discussing it. He acknowledged that the warmth complained of wee improper; but he thought the sword and the gallows little calculated to produce conviction. He complained of the manner in which Mr. MADISON and Mr. G. MORRIS had treated the small States.

Mr. Though he had assented to the Report in the Committee, he had very material objections to it. We were, however, in a peculiar situation. We were neither the same nation, nor different nations. We ought not, therefore, to pursue the one or the other of these ideas too closely. If no compromise should take place, what will be the consequence. A secession he foresaw would take place; for some gentlemen seemed decided on it. Two different plans will be proposed, and the result no man could foresee. If we do not come to some agreement among ourselves, some foreign sword will probably do-the work for us.

Mr. MASON. The Report was meant not as specific propositions to be adopted, but merely as a general ground of accommodation. There must be some accommodation on this point, or we shall make little further progress in the work. Accommodation was the object of the House in the appointment of the Committee, and of the Committee in the port they had made. And, however liable the Report might be to objections, he thought it preferable to an appeal to the world by the different sides, as had been talked of by some gentlemen. It could not be more inconvenient to any gentleman to remain absent from his private affairs, than it was for him, but he would bury his bones in this city, rather than expose his country to the consequenaes of a dissolution of the Convention without any thing being done.

The first proposition in the Report for fixing the representation in the first branch, " one member for every forty thousand inhabitants," being taken up, —

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS objected to that scale of apportionment. He thought proper": ought to be taken into the estimate as well as the number of inhabitants. Life and liberty were generally said to be of more value than property. An aacurate view of the matter would, neverthe less, prove that property wns tbe main object of society. The savage state was more favorable to liberty than the civilized; and sufficiently so to life. It was preferred by all men who had not acquired a taste for property; it was only renounced for the sake of property which could only bs secured by the restraints of regular government. These ideas might appear to some new, but they were nevertheless just. If property, then, was the main object of government, certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the government. He looked forward, also, to that range of new States which would soon be formed in the West. He thought the rule of representation ought to be so fixed, as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence in the national councils. The new States will know less of the public interest than these; will have an interest in many respects different; in particular will be little scrupulous of involving the community in wars the burdens and operations of which would fall chiefly on the maritime States. Provision ought, therefore, to be made to prevent the maritime States from being hereafter outvoted by them. He thought this might be easily done, by irrevocably fixing the number of representatives which the Atlantic States should respectively have, and the number which each new State will have. This would not be unjust, as the western settlers would previously know the conditions on which they were to possess their lands. It would be politic, as it would recommend the plan to the present, as well as future, intetest of the States which mu

Mr. RUTLEDGE. The gentleman last up had spoken some of his sentiments precisely. Property was certainly the principal object of society. If numbers should be made the rule of representation, the Atlantic States would be subjected to the western. He moved that the first proposition in the Report be postponed, in order to take up the following, viz. : " that the suffrages of the several States beregulated and proportioned according to the sums to be paid towards the general revenue by the inhabitants of each State respectively; that an apportionment of suffrages, according to the ratio aforesaid shall be made and regulated at the end of years from the first meeting of the Legislature of the United States, and at the end of everyyears; but that for the present, and until the period above mentioned, the suffrages shall be for New Hampshire—, for Massachusetts, &c." Col. MASON said, the case of new States was not unnoticed in the Committee; but it was thought, and he was himeelf decidedly of opinion, that if they made a part of the Union, they ought to be subject to no unfavorable discriminations. Obvious considerations required it.

Mr. RANDOLPH concurred with Mr. MASON.

On the question on Mr. RUTLEDGE'S motion, —South Carolina, aye—1; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no—9; Georgia, not on the floor. Adjourned.


Monday July 5, 1787 - History

The Salima Koroma-Directed Film Investigates the Black Renaissance in Greenwood, OK And The History Of An American Massacre

DREAMLAND: The Burning of Black Wall Street, executive produced by LeBron James, Maverick Carter, Jamal Henderson, and Philip Byron for The SpringHill Company, and Amy Entelis and Courtney Sexton for CNN Films, will premiere Monday, May 31 at 9:00pm Eastern on CNN and CNN en Español. Directed and produced by Salima Koroma, the cinematic documentary celebrates the Black cultural renaissance that existed in the Greenwood district of Tulsa, OK, and investigates the 100-year-old race massacre that left an indelible, though hidden stain on American history.

Greenwood, a historic center of Black wealth, is the site of one of the nation’s most shocking mass murders. Accounts vary, but a 19-year-old African American man was arrested after being accused of assaulting a 17-year-old white woman inside Tulsa’s Drexel Building. After a white lynch mob was rebuked by African American World War I veterans, violent white vigilantes, some ‘deputized’ by local authorities, pursued and killed hundreds of Black men, women, and children in stunning acts of violence. Businesses were burned. Some marauders even flew airplanes to drop incendiary devices into Black residential areas. More than 35 city blocks were razed. Scores of Black residents needed shelter from the American Red Cross for weeks many permanently fled the city.

As present-day Tulsa seeks reconciliation and accountability for this century-old tragedy, Koroma’s film blends archival media, animation, narrated letters and diary entries, and contemporary interviews with a richly evocative original score. DREAMLAND also examines the findings of the current archeological search for mass graves.

During the May 31 premiere will broadcast on CNN and CNN en Español, DREAMLAND: The Burning of Black Wall Street will also stream live for subscribers via CNNgo (www.CNN.com/go and via CNNgo apps for AppleTV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Samsung Smart TV, and Android TV) and on the CNN mobile apps for iOS and Android. The film will be available beginning Tuesday, June 1, on demand via cable/satellite systems, CNNgo platforms, and CNN mobile apps. The film will encore Saturday, June 5 at 9:00pm Eastern. HBO Max has acquired streaming rights to the film and will offer it for subscribers at a later date.

While watching DREAMLAND, viewers can comment and interact with others across social media platforms using the hashtag #DreamlandTulsa.

About CNN Films

CNN Films produces and acquires documentary feature and short films for theatrical and festival exhibition and distribution across CNN’s multiple platforms. Amy Entelis, executive vice president of talent and content development, oversees the strategy for CNN Films Courtney Sexton, senior vice president for CNN Films, works day-to-day with filmmakers to oversee projects. For more information about CNN Films, please visit www.CNN.com/CNNFilms, follow @CNNFilms via Twitter, and join Keep Watching, an exclusive, members-only community for CNN Films & CNN Original Series https://cnn.it/3qTScB4. Acclaimed CNN Films include the Academy Award ® -nominated, BAFTA-nominated, and Emmy ® Award-winning RBG, directed by Betsy West and Julie Cohen the Emmy ® Award-winning APOLLO 11, the giant screen film APOLLO 11: First Steps Edition, directed by Todd Douglas Miller JIMMY CARTER: Rock & Roll President, directed by Mary Wharton and the Emmy ® Award-nominated, BAFTA-nominated Three Identical Strangers, directed by Tim Wardle.

About The Spring Hill Company

The SpringHill Company is a global consumer and entertainment brand created to empower greatness in every individual. The SpringHill Company unites three companies built by LeBron James and Maverick Carter: UNINTERRUPTED, the athlete empowerment media and consumer product company, SpringHill Entertainment, the premium scripted and unscripted film and television production company and The Robot Company, the brand and culture consultancy. With a dynamic and diverse team committed to creating the most culturally inspired content, entertainment and products, The SpringHill Company is built to be the defining brand for a new generation.


Contents

During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain in 1776 actually occurred on July 2, when the Second Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia declaring the United States independent from Great Britain's rule. [5] [6] After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a Committee of Five, with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author. Congress debated and revised the wording of the Declaration, finally approving it two days later on July 4. A day earlier, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail:

The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more. [7]

Adams's prediction was off by two days. From the outset, Americans celebrated independence on July 4, the date shown on the much-publicized Declaration of Independence, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress. [8]

Historians have long disputed whether members of Congress signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, even though Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin all later wrote that they had signed it on that day. Most historians have concluded that the Declaration was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

By a remarkable coincidence, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the only two signatories of the Declaration of Independence later to serve as presidents of the United States, both died on the same day: July 4, 1826, which was the 50th anniversary of the Declaration, Jefferson even mentioning the fact. [14] Although not a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, James Monroe, another Founding Father who was elected as president, also died on July 4, 1831, making him the third President who died on the anniversary of independence. [15] The only U.S. president to have been born on Independence Day was Calvin Coolidge, who was born on July 4, 1872. [16]

  • In 1777, thirteen gunshots were fired in salute, once at morning and once again as evening fell, on July 4 in Bristol, Rhode Island. An article in the July 18, 1777 issue of The Virginia Gazette noted a celebration in Philadelphia in a manner a modern American would find familiar: an official dinner for the Continental Congress, toasts, 13-gun salutes, speeches, prayers, music, parades, troop reviews, and fireworks. Ships in port were decked with red, white, and blue bunting. [17]
  • In 1778, from his headquarters at Ross Hall, near New Brunswick, New Jersey, General George Washington marked July 4 with a double ration of rum for his soldiers and an artillery salute (feu de joie). Across the Atlantic Ocean, ambassadors John Adams and Benjamin Franklin held a dinner for their fellow Americans in Paris, France. [18]
  • In 1779, July 4 fell on a Sunday. The holiday was celebrated on Monday, July 5. [18]
  • In 1781, the Massachusetts General Court became the first state legislature to recognize July 4 as a state celebration. [18]
  • In 1783, Salem, North Carolina, held a celebration with a challenging music program assembled by Johann Friedrich Peter entitled The Psalm of Joy. The town claims it to be the first public July 4 event, as it was carefully documented by the Moravian Church, and there are no government records of any earlier celebrations. [19]
  • In 1870, the U.S. Congress made Independence Day an unpaid holiday for federal employees. [20]
  • In 1938, Congress changed Independence Day to a paid federal holiday. [21]

Independence Day is a national holiday marked by patriotic displays. Similar to other summer-themed events, Independence Day celebrations often take place outdoors. According to 5 U.S.C. § 6103, Independence Day is a federal holiday, so all non-essential federal institutions (such as the postal service and federal courts) are closed on that day. Many politicians make it a point on this day to appear at a public event to praise the nation's heritage, laws, history, society, and people. [ citation needed ]

Families often celebrate Independence Day by hosting or attending a picnic or barbecue many take advantage of the day off and, in some years, a long weekend to gather with relatives or friends. Decorations (e.g., streamers, balloons, and clothing) are generally colored red, white, and blue, the colors of the American flag. Parades are often held in the morning, before family get-togethers, while fireworks displays occur in the evening after dark at such places as parks, fairgrounds, or town squares. [ citation needed ]

The night before the Fourth was once the focal point of celebrations, marked by raucous gatherings often incorporating bonfires as their centerpiece. In New England, towns competed to build towering pyramids, assembled from barrels and casks. They were lit at nightfall to usher in the celebration. The highest were in Salem, Massachusetts, with pyramids composed of as many as forty tiers of barrels. These made the tallest bonfires ever recorded. The custom flourished in the 19th and 20th centuries and is still practiced in some New England towns. [22]

Independence Day fireworks are often accompanied by patriotic songs such as the national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner" Columbia the Gem of the ocean,"God Bless America" "America the Beautiful" "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" "This Land Is Your Land" "Stars and Stripes Forever" and, regionally, "Yankee Doodle" in northeastern states and "Dixie" in southern states, and occasionally, but has nominally fallen out of favor, Hail Columbia. Some of the lyrics recall images of the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. [ citation needed ]

Firework shows are held in many states, and many fireworks are sold for personal use or as an alternative to a public show. Safety concerns have led some states to ban fireworks or limit the sizes and types allowed. In addition, local and regional weather conditions may dictate whether the sale or use of fireworks in an area will be allowed. Some local or regional firework sales are limited or prohibited because of dry weather or other specific concerns. On these occasions the public may be prohibited from purchasing or discharging fireworks, but professional displays (such as those at sports events) may still take place, if certain safety precautions have been taken. [ citation needed ]

A salute of one gun for each state in the United States, called a "salute to the union," is fired on Independence Day at noon by any capable military base. [23]

New York City has the largest fireworks display in the country sponsored by Macy's, with more than 22 tons of pyrotechnics exploded in 2009. [24] It generally holds displays in the East River. Other major displays are in Seattle on Lake Union in San Diego over Mission Bay in Boston on the Charles River in Philadelphia over the Philadelphia Museum of Art in San Francisco over the San Francisco Bay and on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. [25]

During the annual Windsor–Detroit International Freedom Festival, Detroit, Michigan hosts one of the largest fireworks displays in North America, over the Detroit River, to celebrate Independence Day in conjunction with Windsor, Ontario's celebration of Canada Day. [26]

The first week of July is typically one of the busiest United States travel periods of the year, as many people use what is often a three-day holiday weekend for extended vacation trips. [27]


About Independence Day

In 1775, people in New England began fighting the British for their independence. On July 2, 1776, the Congress secretly voted for independence from Great Britain. Two days later, on July 4, 1776, the final wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved, and the document was published. The first public reading of the Declaration of Independence was on July 8, 1776. Delegates began to sign the Declaration of Independence on August 2, 1776. In 1870, Independence Day was made an unpaid holiday for federal employees. In 1941, it became a paid holiday for them.

The first description of how Independence Day would be celebrated was in a letter from John Adams to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776. He described "pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations" throughout the United States. However, the term "Independence Day" was not used until 1791.

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both signers of the Declaration of Independence and presidents of the United States, died on July 4, 1826 - exactly 50 years after the adoption of the declaration. It is also important to note that Native Americans lived in the country and each tribe had its own nation and government prior to the European settlers.

Independence Day Observances

YearWeekdayDateNameHoliday Type
2016пнд4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2017втр4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2018срд4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2019чтв4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2020птн3 июлIndependence Day observedFederal Holiday
2020сбт4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2021вск4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2021пнд5 июлIndependence Day observedFederal Holiday
2022пнд4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2023втр4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2024чтв4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2025птн4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday
2026птн3 июлIndependence Day observedFederal Holiday
2026сбт4 июлIndependence DayFederal Holiday

While we diligently research and update our holiday dates, some of the information in the table above may be preliminary. If you find an error, please let us know.

Other Names and Languages

EnglishIndependence Day, Fourth of July
Arabicيوم الاستقلال
GermanUnabhängigkeitstag (Independence Day)
Hebrewיום העצמאות
Korean독립기념일
NorwegianUavhengighetsdagen, 4. juli
SpanishDía de la Independencia

Other Holidays in июль 2021 in the United States

  • 13 июл , Nathan Bedford Forrest Day
  • 14 июл , Bastille Day
  • 16 июл , Rural Transit Day
  • 18 июл , Tisha B'Av
  • 20 июл , Eid al-Adha
  • 23 июл , Pioneer Day
  • 24 июл , Pioneer Day
  • 25 июл , Parents' Day
  • 27 июл , National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day

Fun Holiday on 4 июль 2021 г.

Sidewalk Egg Frying Day

Find out how hot it is by frying eggs on the sidewalk. More

Fun Holiday on 5 июль 2021 г.

Workaholics Day

The unofficial holiday raises awareness about the negative health effects of workaholism. More


This Day in History

  • 1884 - Germany takes possession of Cameroon
  • 1915 - The Liberty Bell leaves Philadelphia to go to the Panama-Pacific International Exposition
  • 1934 - Police open fire on striking longshoremen in San Francisco. The day becomes known as "Bloody Thursday"
  • 1935 - President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the National Labor Relations Act into law
  • 1937 - Hormel Foods Corp. introduces Spam into the market
  • 1943 - During World War II at the Battle of Kursk, German forces began a massive offensive against the Soviet Union
  • 1945 - During World War II, the liberation of the Philippines is declared
  • 1946 - The "BIKINI" is debuted at an outdoor fashion show in Paris, France and goes on sale
  • 1950 - The Law of Return is passed by the Knesset which allows all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel
  • 1954 - The first television news bulletin is broadcast by the BBC
  • 1962 - After an 8 year war with France, Algeria declares their independance
  • 1971 - President Richard Nixon certifies the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years
  • 1975 - Cape Verde gains its independence from Portugal
  • 1996 - Dolly the sheep is the first mammal cloned from an adult cell
  • 2004 - The first Indonesian Presidential election is held
  • 2012 - The Shard in London becomes the tallest building in Europe with a height of 1,020 feet
  • 2016 - The Juno space probe begins a 20 month survey of Jupiter
  • 2018 - Lithuania becomes the 36th member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Saint Monday

In the early-to-mid nineteenth century, the industrial revolution brought us as a society to two paths. We, or precisely the powers-that-were (and be), chose the most lucrative one, and we’ve been hurtling blindly down that path ever since. We’ve even forgotten that the other path ever existed. I don’t mean the choice between industrial or agrarian society. We were already well on the road to industrialization when these other choices or paths presented themselves.

In the very early years of the industrial age, factory workers, mostly fresh off the farm, didn’t quite have the 9-5 (or in their case, 9-9 or later) grind beat into their souls yet. They got paid by the piece, and when they had enough money to pay for the necessities, they simply didn’t work. They even invented a new holiday, Saint Monday, which was usually observed after a late Sunday night at the tavern.

As you can imagine, this piecework arrangement didn’t last too long. Employers wanted factories running full tilt all the time. So manufacturers had to figure out how to get workers to actually work full days and full weeks. Incentives and increased pay didn’t entice people. Given the choice of earning more or working less—provided that the base pay was enough to cover expenses—most people then chose time over money. They chose to honor Saint Monday. So employers started paying less, as little as possible even, in order to force workers to put in more hours just to make ends meet.

Once they had everyone working, though, manufacturers realized they had another problem. They produced (or had the capacity to produce) too much. Over production crises threatened many industries. There wasn’t demand for all they could produce. First, they realized they had to pay their workers enough to be able to afford the products they made. Even then, though, we were a historically thrifty people. We truly only needed so much stuff. So manufacturers had to figure out how to get people to buy (and keep buying) products they didn’t necessarily need. And this path has defined our journey as a society ever since.

Saint Monday is the patron of the path we didn’t choose, the proverbial road less traveled.


American History Prime Time Schedule: July 27-31, 2020

Monday, July 27
In 1965, five Des Moines, Iowa students wore black arm bands to protest the escalating war in Vietnam, violating local school policies. The students, Christopher Eckhardt and the four Tinker siblings, challenged the school board's free speech restrictions, and the resulting Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District established that students do not lose their First Amendment rights on school grounds.
In 1971, the New York Times and Washington Post fought the Nixon Administration to publish what came to be known as the "Pentagon Papers," a classified history of U.S. military activity in Vietnam. The Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. United States restricted the government's power over the press and broadened journalists' First Amendment protections.

Tuesday, July 28
Troy Leon Gregg was a convicted armed robber and murderer who challenged his death sentence four other capital punishment cases were considered by the court as well. The Supreme Court ruled against him in Gregg v. Georgia but established stricter guidelines for states wishing to impose the death penalty. The decision also fine-tuned the court's interpretation of the 8th & 14th Amendments
Allan Bakke was a white University of California-Davis medical school applicant who was twice rejected. He claimed he was passed over in favor of less qualified minority applicants. The Supreme Court issued one of its most complicated rulings in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - both striking down the university's specific admissions program and upholding the constitutionality of affirmative action under the 14th Amendment.

Wednesday, July 29
Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia (1940-2020)
Congressman John Lewis, a 17-term Democrat from Georgia, died Friday, July 17 at the age of 80. As a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, he was a seminal figure in the 1960s civil rights movement, from the 1961 Freedom Rides to the 1963 March on Washington to the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma, Alabama. In this 2019 program, Congressman Lewis gives the keynote address at a ceremony naming a Richmond, Virginia boulevard for the pioneering African American tennis player Arthur Ashe.

Thursday, July 30
1960 Lunch Counter Sit-Ins
In 1960, four African American students sat down at a segregated Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, launching a civil rights movement that would spread to other cities throughout the country. University of Massachusetts, Amherst professor Traci Parker joined American History TV and Washington Journal to take viewer questions about desegregation protests from that time. She's the author of "Department Stores and the Black Freedom Movement: Workers, Consumers, and Civil Rights from the 1930s to the 1980s."

Friday, July 31
World War II "Living History"
On a night of programs featuring "living historians" from American Artifacts series, we begin with physician Jack Moody portraying a World War II U.S. Army battalion surgeon at the annual Army Heritage Days in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Dr. Moody's medical tent was set up as a 101st Airborne battalion aid station, a mobile emergency room that would have been located close to the front lines.

American History TV. All weekend - every weekend. And also on Washington Journal this week.


Monday Morning Minister

In my Easter Sunday sermon, I contended that the death of Jesus and the appearances of Jesus following his death, can be established as historical events. However, in order for both events to be historical events, someone would need to explain what happened between the events. Simply put, the first event told of Jesus’ death. The second, told of appearances following his death.

Everyone knows that following death, there is the decomposition of the body of the deceased. Christians agree, but contend that in the case of Jesus, there was no decomposition. Instead, Jesus was seen for forty days by hundreds of eyewitnesses. Some critics contend, it is impossible for both events to have taken place. To which Christians would argue, that with Jesus, his postmortem appearances were unnatural, but not impossible.

In the first place, one must establish the credibility of the New Testament record that Jesus died. No one else died for him. Neither did he faint on the cross. Medical science will indicate that the blood and water that flowed from his side confirmed his death. Giving his lifeless body to Joseph of Arimathea for burial was either as a result of death or, a dereliction of duty by the Romans.

Credible non-canonical New Testament writings further confirm the New Testament records that Jesus died. These will include works by Justyn Martyr and Roman Senator Tacitus. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian (ca 93-94 CE), wrote that “there was a wise man called Jesus. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.” Even Christian-turned-atheist Professor Bart Ehrman, admits that “the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”

Evidence is equally convincing about the postmortem appearances of Jesus. What else could have transformed the disciples from fearful to be forthright in their witness? Or, what could have caused the rapid growth of the Jesus movement?

In his volume on The Jewish Messiahs, Jewish Professor Harris Lenowitz, makes the point: “Since the success of a messiah cult depends, ultimately, on the victory of the messiah, and since the messiah must eventually die, the cult must fail, either upon the messiah’s death or whenever it can no longer maintain its hope in his triumphant reappearance.” Unfortunately, following this statement, Lenowitz, the Jew, argued that Christianity grew because it moved in a direction totally different from its dead leader.

Professor Lenowitz, the evidence is clear - following the death of Jesus, his followers-maintained loyalty to a living Saviour. Their choice to worship on the first day of the week was consistent with his resurrection. So too were their baptismal creed and form of greeting after church services.

Since it is unnatural for someone to be clinically dead and reappear to his followers, how could Christians contend that that was exactly what happened with Jesus? A number of theories have been advanced to explain this phenomenon, and Christians have opted for the most plausible.

Upon discovering that the body of Jesus was missing, the Jewish authorities devised a plan. They instructed the soldiers to say, “his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13). But what would fearful disciples do with a battered dead body? Remember now, they were from the Galilean region, some eighty miles north. This is a dishonest theory.

Another theory expressed in Islamic literature, is that Allah took Jesus to heaven, sparing him from crucifixion on the cross. There is no credible historical support for this theory. Agreed, the theory alleges that Jesus is alive today. However, to suggest that he did not die on the cross, removes the need for resurrection, questions the veracity of Jesus’ postmortem appearances, challenges the credibility of the New Testament and undermines the foundation of Christianity. Totally untenable.

Some Christians advance the view that what happened after the death of Jesus was spiritual resurrection. In other words, it was the positive memories of Jesus that inspired the fearful disciples to become brave. This branch of Christianity is devoid of anything miraculous. In addition, these believers ignore texts which clearly state that Jesus was raised from the dead – that is physical death.

The best explanation as to what happened following Jesus’ death on the cross, is physical resurrection. Agreed, that view is not natural, it is supernatural. It is illogical to believe that it is natural or humanly possible for someone to die and be resurrected. The New Testament refers to this as an act of God. Almost every reference to resurrection states, it was “… God who raised Jesus from the dead…”.

For Christians, the resurrection of Jesus affirms our salvation (Romans 10:9). Resurrection also consolidates our faith as believers (1 Corinthians 15:17) and affirms our hope, in that after death, we too will rise again like our Risen Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14).


Outside the Beltway

In a WaPo piece on the Tea Party (Tea party gatherings on the Fourth mix the educational and the patriotic) we have the following:

“The founding fathers were very afraid of a central government,” said Rick Buchanan, an organizer of the Fauquier County Tea Party who last started up a 12-week class on the Constitution and advertised it at “An American Event.”

I pick out this quote for discussion because this appears to be a theme running through some conservative circles of late, and especially the Tea Party movement. It is the kind of incorrect, ahistorical thinking that leads people like Sharron Angle and Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon to talk about “Second Amendment remedies” for states that don’t like policy coming out of Washington.

One can have legitimate arguments about the proper scope of the central government or about the correct interpretation of Article I, Section 8 or the Tenth Amendment. However, what one cannot properly assert is that “The founding fathers were very afraid of a central government.”

If, in fact, the founders feared a central government, why did they form one? The very purpose of the Philadelphia convention of 1787 that produced the Constitution of 1789 was to create a central government that could actually govern the United States. It was a purposive transfer of power from states to the central government. As such, claims like Mr. Buchanan’s make no sense.

As James Madison argued in a letter to George Washington in April of 1787: “I would propose that…the national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, etc. etc.”

Again, while one can debate the exact meanings of host of issues, one cannot read a sentence from one of the key founders which states that “the national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority” in a set of policy arenas and also state that the founders “were very afraid of a central government.”

Indeed, when we speak of “Founding Fathers” the “Founding” that we celebrate is the founding of a unified country known as the United States of America, which would not exist sans a central government. Further, the crowning moment of that founding was the aforementioned Constitution of 1789, which, again as noted, substantially diminished the powers the state had under the Articles of Confederation.

There is also the rather inconvenient fact that most of the persons whom we confer the title “Founding Fathers” all served in prominent posts in the central government of the United States.

It is bad enough to go around with such a profound misunderstanding of basic politics and history, but it is enough to make one’s brain hurt when persons make such claims in the context of being promoters of a better understanding of the Constitution.

About Steven L. Taylor

Comments

Steven, I shall presume that many of the Tea Party members speak like Yogi Berra while their hearts are in the right place. You are in a position to judge their statements from an academic high ground which will virtually always find inaccuracy and exaggeration. The Tea Party people I encounter sense something is wrong, but do not know how to communicate it in clear, unambiguous language. I would hope some well spoken, clear thinkers might rise to the top of the movement to clarify and simplify what the movement hopes to change.

Don’t forget that most of our politicians don’t exhibit an advanced understanding of the Constitution either. Since they are generally regarded as self serving and easily manipulated by special interests, I’ll be more sympathetic towards the Tea Party people, with the presumption their hearts are in the right place.

So naïveté and the inability to speak clearly are now legitimate excuses for people who espouse totally incorrect information? I knew that the bar was already set low for these folks, I just didn’t realize it was this low…

Not an excuse, just a description of how I view them. As to whether the info they espouse is TOTALLY incorrect, what do you call the info espoused out of DC?

Far be it from me to defend the simplistic view of history that Glenn Beck is teaching the Tea Party movement, but a few comments………

First, it is absolutely correct that the primary goal of Madison and others at the Philadelphia Convention was to create a stronger central government. The failures of the Articles of Confederation had become manifest very early after the American Revolution had ended, and it’s fair to say that the colonies probably would not have stayed united if the Articles had never been replaced.

However, saying that the Founders wanted a stronger central government is a very different thing from saying that they were convinced of the benefits of such an institution.

Reading through the notes from the Convention, The Federalist Papers, and other contemporary writings, one notes that the advocates of the Constitution were making two arguments. First, that a stronger Federal Government would benefit everyone. Second, that the Federal Government really wouldn’t be as strong as the Anti-Federalists feared, because it would be limited to the powers set forth in Article I, Section 8.

Arguing, correctly, that the Founders wanted to create a stronger Federal Government is a far different thing from arguing that they ever intended to create the Federal behemoth we live with today.

They certainly did. Apropos of a current debate, one hears much of the tyranny of an “individual mandate,” yet there is historical precedent for such a mandate. Consider the Militia Act of 1792, which I’ve written about previously:

1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

There’s two things to note about this. The first is that the act amounted to a national draft:

“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”

and two, the enrollees were required to purchase, on their own dime,

“a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder”

The act was used by President Washington to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. It’s impossible to square this act, and its employment in supressing an insurrection with “The founding fathers were very afraid of a central government.” The act, its mandates, and its employment were all in the service of a central government, and a strong one at that.


History, 1834–1836

10 Jan. 1803𠄳 Jan. 1877. Clergyman, gardener. Born in New York. Son of John Parrish and Ruth Farr. Married first Elizabeth (Betsey) Patten of Westmoreland Co., New Hampshire, ca. 1822. Lived at Alexandria, Jefferson Co., New York, 1830. Purchased land at.

17 Oct. 1788� Feb. 1851. Physician, druggist, farmer, editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Married Patience Simonds, 22 Sept. 1814, in Pawlet, Rutland Co. Moved to Freedom, Cattaraugus Co., New York, 1816.

28 Oct. 1787� Oct. 1842. Ship’s pilot, teacher, physician, justice of the peace. Born at Suffield, Hartford Co., Connecticut. Son of William Wheeler Williams and Ruth Granger. Moved to Newburg, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, 1799. Practiced Thomsonian botanical system.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

28 Oct. 1787� Oct. 1842. Ship’s pilot, teacher, physician, justice of the peace. Born at Suffield, Hartford Co., Connecticut. Son of William Wheeler Williams and Ruth Granger. Moved to Newburg, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, 1799. Practiced Thomsonian botanical system.

10 Jan. 1803𠄳 Jan. 1877. Clergyman, gardener. Born in New York. Son of John Parrish and Ruth Farr. Married first Elizabeth (Betsey) Patten of Westmoreland Co., New Hampshire, ca. 1822. Lived at Alexandria, Jefferson Co., New York, 1830. Purchased land at.

17 Oct. 1788� Feb. 1851. Physician, druggist, farmer, editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Married Patience Simonds, 22 Sept. 1814, in Pawlet, Rutland Co. Moved to Freedom, Cattaraugus Co., New York, 1816.

24 June 1804� Mar. 1854. Teacher, lecturer, doctor, clerk, printer, editor, postmaster. Born at Hopkinton, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts. Son of Joseph Richards and Rhoda Howe. Moved to Richmond, Berkshire Co., Massachusetts, 1813 to Chatham, Columbia Co.

See JS History, vol. A-1, microfilm, Dec. 1971, CHL. Only one leaf of the original pastedowns and flyleaves is extant. The pastedowns were replaced with undecorated paper in 1994, according to a conservation note on the verso of the extant marbled leaf archived with the volume.  

JS History, vol. A-1. Microfilm, Dec. 1971. CHL. CR 100 102, reel 1.

See JS, Journal, 29 Oct. 1835 and 25 Jan. 1836 (see also entry for 29 Oct. 1835 herein).  

1804𠄳 Nov. 1839. Born in Ireland. Baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Married Sarah Scott, 8 Feb. 1838/1839, at Far West, Caldwell Co., Missouri. Engaged in clerical work for JS, 1838, at Far West. Ordained a seventy, 28 Dec. 1838.

Principal gathering place for Saints following expulsion from Missouri. Beginning in 1839, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints purchased lands in earlier settlement of Commerce and planned settlement of Commerce City, as well as surrounding areas.

The serialized publication of this history began in the 15 March 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons .  

Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839�. 1846.

11 Feb. 1798� Nov. 1823. Farmer, carpenter. Born at Tunbridge, Orange Co., Vermont. Son of Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack. Moved to Randolph, Orange Co., 1802 returned to Tunbridge, before May 1803. Moved to Royalton, Windsor Co., Vermont, 1804, and to.

23 Dec. 1816� Feb. 1885. Farmer, excise officer, secretary, clerk. Born in Leek, Staffordshire, England. Son of Thomas Bullock and Mary Hall. Married Henrietta Rushton, 25 June 1838. Moved to Ardee, Co. Louth, Ireland, Nov. 1839 to Isle of Anglesey, Aug.

“Schedule of Church Records. Nauvoo 1846,” [1] “Historian’s Office Catalogue 1858,” 2, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846�, CHL.  

Historian’s Office. Catalogs and Inventories, 1846�. CHL. CR 100 130.

See JS History, vol. A-1, microfilm, Dec. 1971, CHL. Only one leaf of the original pastedowns and flyleaves is extant. The pastedowns were replaced with undecorated paper in 1994, according to a conservation note on the verso of the extant marbled leaf archived with the volume.  

JS History, vol. A-1. Microfilm, Dec. 1971. CHL. CR 100 102, reel 1.

See JS, Journal, 29 Oct. 1835 and 25 Jan. 1836 (see also entry for 29 Oct. 1835 herein).  

The serialized publication of this history began in the 15 March 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons .  

Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839�. 1846.

“Schedule of Church Records. Nauvoo 1846,” [1] “Historian’s Office Catalogue 1858,” 2, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846�, CHL.  

Historian’s Office. Catalogs and Inventories, 1846�. CHL. CR 100 130.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

28 Oct. 1787� Oct. 1842. Ship’s pilot, teacher, physician, justice of the peace. Born at Suffield, Hartford Co., Connecticut. Son of William Wheeler Williams and Ruth Granger. Moved to Newburg, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, 1799. Practiced Thomsonian botanical system.

10 Jan. 1803𠄳 Jan. 1877. Clergyman, gardener. Born in New York. Son of John Parrish and Ruth Farr. Married first Elizabeth (Betsey) Patten of Westmoreland Co., New Hampshire, ca. 1822. Lived at Alexandria, Jefferson Co., New York, 1830. Purchased land at.

17 Oct. 1788� Feb. 1851. Physician, druggist, farmer, editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Married Patience Simonds, 22 Sept. 1814, in Pawlet, Rutland Co. Moved to Freedom, Cattaraugus Co., New York, 1816.

French explored and claimed area, 1669. British took possession following French and Indian War, 1763. Ceded to U.S., 1783. First permanent white settlement established, 1788. Northeastern portion maintained as part of Connecticut, 1786, and called Connecticut.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

French explored and claimed area, 1669. British took possession following French and Indian War, 1763. Ceded to U.S., 1783. First permanent white settlement established, 1788. Northeastern portion maintained as part of Connecticut, 1786, and called Connecticut.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

French explored and claimed area, 1669. British took possession following French and Indian War, 1763. Ceded to U.S., 1783. First permanent white settlement established, 1788. Northeastern portion maintained as part of Connecticut, 1786, and called Connecticut.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

28 Oct. 1787� Oct. 1842. Ship’s pilot, teacher, physician, justice of the peace. Born at Suffield, Hartford Co., Connecticut. Son of William Wheeler Williams and Ruth Granger. Moved to Newburg, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, 1799. Practiced Thomsonian botanical system.

10 Jan. 1803𠄳 Jan. 1877. Clergyman, gardener. Born in New York. Son of John Parrish and Ruth Farr. Married first Elizabeth (Betsey) Patten of Westmoreland Co., New Hampshire, ca. 1822. Lived at Alexandria, Jefferson Co., New York, 1830. Purchased land at.

17 Feb. 1792𠄷 Mar. 1872. Writer, teacher, printer, newspaper editor, publisher, postmaster, lawyer. Born at Hanover, Morris Co., New Jersey. Son of Enon Phelps and Mehitabel Goldsmith. Moved to Homer, Cortland Co., New York, 1800. Married Sally Waterman.

JS, Journal, 29 Oct. 1835 see also entry for 29 Oct. 1835 herein. In this case, “my journal” refers to JS’s 1834� history, which JS also called his “large journal.”  

17 Oct. 1788� Feb. 1851. Physician, druggist, farmer, editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Married Patience Simonds, 22 Sept. 1814, in Pawlet, Rutland Co. Moved to Freedom, Cattaraugus Co., New York, 1816.

10 Jan. 1803𠄳 Jan. 1877. Clergyman, gardener. Born in New York. Son of John Parrish and Ruth Farr. Married first Elizabeth (Betsey) Patten of Westmoreland Co., New Hampshire, ca. 1822. Lived at Alexandria, Jefferson Co., New York, 1830. Purchased land at.

JS History, 1834� / Smith, Joseph, et al. History, 1834�. In Joseph Smith et al., History, 1838�, vol. A-1, back of book (earliest numbering), 9�, 46�. Historian&aposs Office, History of the Church, 1839�. 1882. CHL. CR 100 102, box 1, vol. 1.

Area acquired by U.S. in Louisiana Purchase, 1803, and established as territory, 1812. Missouri Compromise, 1820, admitted Missouri as slave state, 1821. Population in 1830 about 140,000 in 1836 about 240,000 and in 1840 about 380,000. Latter-day Saint .

27 Aug. 1802� July 1878. Farmer, stock raiser, newspaper editor. Born in Pennsylvania. Son of Peter Whitmer Sr. and Mary Musselman. Member of German Reformed Church, Fayette, Seneca Co., New York. Baptized by Oliver Cowdery, June 1829, most likely in Seneca.

JS, Kirtland, OH, to William W. Phelps, [Independence, MO], 27 Nov. 1832, in JS Letterbook 1, pp. 1, 3.  

JS Letterbook 1 / Smith, Joseph. “Letter Book A,” 1832�. Joseph Smith Collection. CHL. MS 155, box 2, fd. 1.

3 Oct. 1806𠄳 Mar. 1850. Clerk, teacher, justice of the peace, lawyer, newspaper editor. Born at Wells, Rutland Co., Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller. Raised Congregationalist. Moved to western New York and clerked at a store, ca. 1825�.

19 Feb. 1793� July 1876. Tanner, farmer, minister. Born at St. Clair, Allegheny Co., Pennsylvania. Son of William Rigdon and Nancy Gallaher. Joined United Baptists, ca. 1818. Preached at Warren, Trumbull Co., Ohio, and vicinity, 1819�. Married Phebe.

28 Oct. 1787� Oct. 1842. Ship’s pilot, teacher, physician, justice of the peace. Born at Suffield, Hartford Co., Connecticut. Son of William Wheeler Williams and Ruth Granger. Moved to Newburg, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, 1799. Practiced Thomsonian botanical system.

JS, Journal, 29 Oct. 1835 see also entry for 29 Oct. 1835 herein. In this case, “my journal” refers to JS’s 1834� history, which JS also called his “large journal.”  

JS History, 1834� / Smith, Joseph, et al. History, 1834�. In Joseph Smith et al., History, 1838�, vol. A-1, back of book (earliest numbering), 9�, 46�. Historian&aposs Office, History of the Church, 1839�. 1882. CHL. CR 100 102, box 1, vol. 1.

JS, Kirtland, OH, to William W. Phelps, [Independence, MO], 27 Nov. 1832, in JS Letterbook 1, pp. 1, 3.  

JS Letterbook 1 / Smith, Joseph. “Letter Book A,” 1832�. Joseph Smith Collection. CHL. MS 155, box 2, fd. 1.


Watch the video: ΣΚΑΙ: 1821 - ΟΙ ΗΡΩΕΣ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΚΑΡΑΪΣΚΑΚΗΣ Επ. 2 (December 2021).