British Reaction and Views of the American Revolution

By Brian Freeman

Scholars have long debated whether the American Revolution was a social or political event. However one argument that can be made is the American reaction and view of the Revolution is well known. The British reaction and view of the American Revolution seems to be lost in history. If one truly wants to understand the American Revolution both sides must be observed. To understand the British reaction to the American Revolution one must look at each individual act and determine the response and consequences of British political leaders of the time. We must further look at each individual and determine the response to it and the consequences of each action. The British reaction to the American Revolution consisted of confusion and consequences. There was confusion among Parliament and the king and consequences that would occur by there leadership.

The Seven Years War with France established Britain as the world’s leading colonial power and left her with vastly increased territories in the New World. However, the victory caused two very serious problems for Britain. The first problem was that the victory made Americans feel they no longer had anything to fear from the French or Indians. Yet because the Seven Years War victory was not overwhelming for the British government, they felt the need to station ten thousand troops in the colonies just in case of French revenge and Indian depredations. Secondly, the British were starting to feel the strain of debt that often follows war. In order to raise money to pay off these costly debts, British leaders began to pass a series of taxes, acts, and other laws which caused a massive uproar from the colonists who were forced to pay and abide by these taxes and laws.

The first tax passed in 1733, was the Molasses Act, which put heavy taxes on imported molasses, except that from the British controlled West Indies. The colonial response was one of a subdued, prospering nation. It was George Grenville Prime Minster at the time that first proposed a new Revenue Act or as the colonists would call it the Sugar Act. In Grenville’s opinion the colonists, “had contributed very little to the war effort”[1] and felt; the tax was fair, after all the Americans were paying for their defense. This act was clearly placed on the colonists for British profit; mercantilism at its best. More money would be pumped into Britain’s economy if the sugar industry, British nobleman, and the investors thrived.

The Sugar Act was very ineffective because of colonial smuggling. The smuggling eventually forced George III and Parliament to pass the Stamp Act, so that the colonist would agree to its fairness. Christopher Hibbert states that, “Since stamp duties had long been imposed in England, the King presumed to agree that there was no reason at all why Parliament, in the proper exercise of its duties as the supreme constitutional authority in the Empire, should not impose such duties in America.”[2] The English public represented by the English newspapers took notice of Parliaments action and, “were quite as satisfied as was the King to its fairness and propriety.”[3] The American colonists failed to see the fairness of new taxes and there were those inside Britain who did not agree with the Acts. There were those in the British Parliament that argued against the acts. The question of American taxation divided the politicians in a similar way. According to Richard Pares, “there were many who thought all general principles of no taxation without representation beside the point.”[4] William Pitt the elder made a very powerful speech in which he protested that, “England should not take money out [of] the American’s pockets without their consent.”[5] Pitts speech would help lead to the eventual reduction in the tax but reduction in the tax would not be enough for the colonist. American complaints about the cost and inconvenience of billeting the soldiers sounded like gross ingratitude to George III and his successive cabinets, and indeed it was but that was hardly the point. These acts, such as the Molasses Act, the Proclamation of 1763, the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, and the Coercive Acts, combined caused the colonists to be disobedient to the Crown and helped plant seeds of independence.

The colonists continued to rebel against the King but the Boston Tea Party was the one key-event of the Revolutionary War. With this act, the colonists started the violent part of the revolution. It was the first try of the colonists to rebel with violence against their own government. On the night of December 16, 1773, bands of disguised Bostonians boarded three ships anchored in their harbor and feverishly dumped 342 crates of British tea into the water. The Boston vandals even rowed boats into the harbor the morning after, and seeing where the tea still floated, beat it "with oars and paddles" to ensure its destruction.[6] The Boston colonists were tired of the taxes and thought they could defend themselves. The colonists wanted the British out so they resisted all the taxes. Though other cities had resisted the landing of the tea, Boston's measures were the most forceful. The Parliament was thrown into shock and anger with the news. One member proclaimed that "the town of Boston ought to be knocked about their ears and annihilated."[7] Parliament’s Tea Act was supposed to solve problems, not inflame them. The Tea Act was passed to help the near-bankrupt East India Company win a monopoly to export tea to the colonies. The Crown would collect a small duty on the transactions, and the colonists would get their tea cheaper than even the smugglers' brew.

In Parliament, the new Prime Minster Lord North, reflecting the king's wishes, laid out a series of acts intended to punish the Americans. Since Boston had been the "ringleader in all riots" with regard to opposing British Acts, North began with the proposal of closing the Boston Harbor.[8] The British responded by passing the Coercive Acts. The acts main duty was closing the port of Boston. It would remain closed, not only until Bostonians paid for the jettisoned tea, which amounted to ten thousand pounds sterling, but until they showed "peace and obedience"[9] in their conduct.

The Boston embargo would be accompanied by new rules for governing Massachusetts. The Crown would run things which would obliterate all self-government. Even town meetings would be subject to written consent from the royal governor. However, some in Parliament suggested the proposed punishment was too harsh. Lord North counter replied stating: "The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course."[10] Edmund Burke who according to Randolph Adams, “was sincerely sympathetic with the aspirations of the American colonies”[11] made an eyebrow-raising suggestion to repeal the Tea Act. Burke felt that repealing the acts would be "the remedy to bring peace and quietness and restore authority,"[12] Though he believed the Americans "cannot resist the force"[13] of England, he thought North's solution would cause "wranglings, scuffling and discontent."[14] The prominent British Whig statesman Charles Fox agreed. "The only method by which the Americans will ever think they are attached to this country will be by laying aside the right of taxing,"[15] Fox told the Commons. Fox pleaded with his peers to "consider whether it is more proper to govern by military force or by management."[16] The words of Burke and Fox would not be heard and Lord North continued to punish the American Colonists. Wilfred Prest states that, “in fact Lord North received overwhelming support, from both within and outside Parliament for the coercive measures which he introduced in response to the Boston Tea Party.”[17] However, because Parliament passed Lord North’s Acts it forced the colonists to call the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia. A terrible snow ball effect occurred and war was inevitable.

The Boston Tea Party and the reaction of the British Empire to use force only made the colonies situation worse. George III and Lord North encouraged by strong public opinion and by the mood of a supportive Parliament decided to send combat troops to manage the colony rebellion. Edward Gibbon who just started work on his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, spoke for many when he declared, “I am more and more convinced that we have both the right and the power on our side, and that though the effort may be accompanied with some melancholy circumstances, we are now arrived at the decisive moment of persevering or of losing for ever both our trade and empire.”[18] Gibbon would find much like his fellow Britain’s who supported to combat the rebellion would come to regret their actions.

General Thomas Gage would be the first to land America to combat the rebellion. General Gage suggested that the colonists, “talk of taking up arms would go no further than words.”[19] Gage’s view of the colonist was shared by many in Parliament. It was not long after General Gage landing before he would alarmed by the growing unrest he found. He reported in a letter to Parliament, “I don’t mean in Boston but throughout the country.”[20] He went on to say, “If you think ten thousand men enough send twenty; you will save both blood and treasure in the end.”[21] Parliament did not oblige Gage by sending as many men as he had hoped for; but they did send three generals to assist him. Immediately upon landing, all three generals were disturbed to find thousands of colonists had been assembling in camps around Boston, most of them still wearing the homespun clothes in which they had left their farms. Lord North after hearing the reports was quoted as saying, “I know that they make me tremble.”[22] The Battle of Bunker Hill was one of the first battles of the war. The disorganized and heavily outnumbered Americans suffered over four hundred casualties. The British suffered more than the Americans with a more severe number of casualties reaching over one thousand. Among the large number of casualties, the British also lost sixty-three officers from being wounded and twenty seven from being killed. General Clinton commented: “Officers told me they could not command their men and I never saw so great a want of order.”[23] The British had won the battle of Bunker Hill, but the American’s had shown themselves to be far from being “very unfit for war”[24] as it had been suggested by George III.

When the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, the delegates drafted the Olive Branch Petition to the crown as an attempt at reconciliation. The Congress had hoped that the word of the bloodshed at Bunker Hill would inspire the King to at least negotiate with the colonists. King George III refused to receive the Olive Branch Petition by instead issuing the Proclamation of Rebellion which requires action against the "traitors"[25]. Solomon Lutnick argues that King George III and Lord North had to reject the Olive Branch Petition, “for it was made by the same session of the Continental Congress that had turned down the North proposal.”[26] The King’s rejection was important to the Colonial radicals because it gave them the opportunity they needed to push for independence. The rejection of the Olive Branch Petition polarized the issue in the minds of colonists. It seemed to show them that they could either submit unconditionally or gain complete independence with no other option. George III had good intentions when he rejected the Olive Branch Petition. George III feared the breakup of his large empire. King George III saw the American rebellion as more than just a political problem but "as a private quarrel between himself and his ungrateful children, the American colonists".[27] He had the broad support of the country and Parliament for the war, but neither he nor his ministers were able to grapple with the problems of controlling a vast overseas empire.

The British would find huge impossibility of controlling a war three thousand miles away. The reports of the battles first arrived as rumors weeks after they had occurred. Instructions from the government took six to ten weeks to get to America, and the ships taking supplies and reinforcements had to sail against prevailing winds often arriving in unintended ports. Most importantly at the beginning of the Revolutionary War there were approximately 48,647 men in the regular British Army. Of this number, 39,294 were infantrymen, 6,869 were cavalrymen, and 2,484 were artillerymen.[28] Within North America only 8,580 in eighteen regiments of infantry covered a distance from Newfoundland to Florida while the overwhelming majority was located in Boston.[29] George F.Scheer and Hugh F. Rankin state:

“The King now recluctantly admitted that a state of rebellion did exist and that a vast army would be required for America. Conscious that Great Britain was not likely to provide sufficient manpower, he considered a scheme for hiring twenty thousand Russian mercenaries, but Catherine of Russia refused to make a deal.”[30]

In order to gain more troops the British government shorted the terms of enlistment, offered bounties to volunteers and pardon to malefactors. It had also been decided to lower the standards of physical fitness which had in any event never been higher and to also impress convicted smugglers as well as all disorderly persons who could not, upon examination, prove themselves to exercise and industriously follow some lawful Trade or Employment.[31] Despite all the changes made in order gain more troops the enlistment number was disappointingly low. The Cabinet decided they would have to look to Germany for the men and in 1775 five regiments of Hanoverians became mercenaries for the British Empire. Opposition soon strongly protested against the use of mercenaries. The Middlesex Journal angrily reported, “that the Government was forced to employ foreigners, if it this were a genuine English war, the hiring of mercenaries would not have been necessary.”[32] Most disturbing of all was the British Navy’s ability to recruit personnel. Sailors were reluctant to go to America, especially when merchant ships paid better wages, offered better living conditions, and held fewer dangers to life and limb.[33] The British Navy was forced to order press gangs which was the act of compelling people to serve in the military, usually by force and without notice.

The real blame for British failure in the American Revolution may have lay higher up in the leadership. Lord North was a hopeless war leader, as he himself was quick to recognize; but his frequent requests to resign were brusquely rejected by George III. North on one occasion wrote to the King stating, “your Majesty service requires a man of great abilities, who can choose decisively, and carry his determination authoritatively into execution. . . I am certainly not such a man.”[34] King George III would not hear any talk of resignation and encouraged North. The King stated to North in a letter, “you must not allow thoughts of resignation to take hold. I love you as a man of worth,” he assured, “and I esteem you as Minster.”[35]

The Battle of Saratoga is considered to be the major turning point of the American Revolution. This battle proved to the world that the fledgling American army was an effective fighting force capable of defeating the highly trained British forces in a major confrontation. As a result of this successful battle, the European powers took interest in the cause of the Americans and began to support them. The unexpected surrender of General Burgoyne and his five thousand men at Saratoga in New York during October of 1777 encouraged France, Spain, and eventually Holland to enter the war on the American side. While the Americans continued to gain support for their war, Britain remained in diplomatic isolation unable to persuade other powers such as Austria and Russia to join. The French involvement posed serious problems for King George III and Lord North as the threat of the renewed war surfaced. The French would certainly try to seize the West Indian sugar islands. Because of the French threat, the British were forced to withdraw troops from continental America to reinforce the sugar producing islands which were considered more valuable. The king had already expressed the sensible opinion that should a war against France become inevitable, “the only means of making it successful” would be to withdraw most of the troops from America and employ them against the French and Spanish settlements.[36] The king went on to say, “if we are to be carrying on a land war against the rebels and against those two powers it must be feeble in all parts and consequently unsuccessful.”[37] Also the new French, Spanish, and American alliance combined naval strength which now more easily outnumbered that of the British Fleet. The British Fleet had already had problems bringing supplies for the war effort.

It was a combination of these factors which forced many who had previously supported the war to change their mind to not supporting the war. Edward Gibbon who earlier supported the war stated, “I shall never give my consent to exhaust still further the finest country in the world in this prosecution of a war from whence no reasonable man entertains any hope of success. It is better to be humbled than ruined.”[38] While surrender of Saratoga changed views some looked to blame. The Gazetteer one of London’s most popular newspapers reported, “The battle at Saratoga was not lost in America, but, as for all other losses, the blame was to be found in London.”[39] Furthermore, it contended that it would be a “national suicide” for England to continue the American War.[40] In the Parliament many fought for the war to end. Lord Chatham, despite his old age and infirmities, stood up and delivered one of the most passionate speeches.

“No man thinks more highly than I of the virtue and valor of British troops; I know they can achieve anything except impossibilities; and the conquest of English America is an impossibility. . . You cannot conquer America. . . You may swell every expense and every effort still more extravagantly. . . traffic and barter with every pitiful prince that sells his subjects to shambles of a foreign power; your efforts are forever vain and impotent, doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely, for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies. . . If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms, never - never – never!”[41]

George III with all the pressure of those wanting to end the war would not change his view and is often accused of obstinately trying to keep Great Britain at war with the revolutionaries in America, despite the opinions of his own ministers. George III refused to allow outside mediators or professional politicians to develop exit strategies from the conflict either by recognizing the independence of the colonies or developing terms of disengagement which were advantageous to Britain.[42]

The Battle of Yorktown was the climax of the Revolutionary War. The combined forces of George Washington, Admiral de Grasse, General Rochambeau, and General Lafayette were enough to converge on the largest concentration of British forces, overtake them and force them to surrender. The battle of Yorktown, the last major battle of the American Revolution, was the final colonial victory that gave America the final boost towards the step of independence. The surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, on the 19th of October, 1781, marks the close of the American Revolution War. Though peace had yet to come, the final treaty was not to be ratified until two tears later; the impact of surrender was recognized by England’s civil and military leaders, but not by the King. George III continued to assure Government speakers in the House of Commons that the unfortunate events at Yorktown had been brought about by the interference of the French. He declared, “A good end may yet be made to this war.”[43] Lord North was not as confident as King George III. Lord George Germain stated when he first brought the news to Lord North that the effect, “was like that of musketball to the breast. He paced up and down the room, exclaiming in mingled horror and relief, ‘O God! It is all over!’”[44] Lord North was right that it was over by the spring of the year 1782. The Commons voted to stop further aggressive operation in America and Lord was forced out of office by a motion of no confidence, resigning on 20 March 1782.

King George III for months after Yorktown spoke bitterly of war. He constantly referred to it with sadness and resentful anger. Casting wide the blame for his country’s humiliation and involving in his condemnation his generals, Lord North and his other Ministers, as well as the inhabitants of that revolted State though never himself.[45]As late as November 1782 he would write to the First Lord of the Treasury:

“I cannot conclude without mentioning how sensibly I feel the dismemberment of America, and that I should be miserable indeed if I did not feel that no blame on that account can be laid at my door, and did I not know that knavery seems to be so much the striking feature of its inhabitants that it may not in the end be an evil that they become aliens to the kingdom.”[46]

The surrender at Yorktown made it very plain that the rebellious colonies would not be brought to heel by military force and with the end of the North Ministry paved the way for peace. It would take more than twelve months to conclude a peace settlement. The peace negotiations were complicated by the involvement of France and other European powers as well as by continued differences between George III and Parliament. The Peace Paris which was what ended the war with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. The Peace of Paris saw surprisingly little loss of territory for the British Empire other than the loss of the thirteen American colonies. However, France regained Tobago and Senegal while Spain recovered Florida and Minorca. After eight long years of war the Treaty of Paris formally ended the American Revolutionary War between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America. The treaty also finally recognized American Independence. George III may have wished to continue the struggle in America but he was forced to see that the people of Britain had enough of the war. The newspapers of Britain joyful commented on peace and praised American Independence. The William Parker’s General Advertiser found the signing of the treaty a very momentous and huge event in Great Britain’s history. Using type four times larger than normal, Parker’s columns screamed, “PEACE WITH AMERICA!” In double sized type, all capitalized, he joyfully related that the Commons had returned to its senses, ended the American War, “and set England upon her legs again.”[47] The Gazette which had been predominately anti-American reported on the issue of American Independence, “They have fought nobly for it, and have gained it. Long may they preserve it, unviolated by faction or ambition.”[48]

The intransigent King must take as much blame as his ministers for the debacle. King George III refused to end the war because he did not want to lose his empire. The blame for the loss of the American colonies should not rest on the shoulders of King George III. The readers must decide for themselves whether or not with three and a half thousand miles of treacherous sea-journey between London and New York, and a westward-looking America set to grow exponentially over the coming decades, if independence would almost inevitably have come sooner or later. Independence would have came if not under the rule of George III then under the rule of his grand-daughter Queen Victoria. Thanks to the political and physical difficulties of conducting such a huge overseas operation, the world’s greatest power was defeated by a ragged band of revolutionaries.

Primary Bibliography

Adams, Randolph. Political Ideas of the American Revolution. New York: Barnes & Nobles, 1958.

Barkan, Elliott. Edmund Burke on the American Revolution. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966.

Hibbert, Christopher. George III a Personal History. Great Britain: Basic Books, 1998.

Lutnick, Solomon. The American Revolution and the British Press 1775-1783. Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1967.

Pares, Richard. King George III and the Politicians. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

Prest, Wilfrid. Albion Ascendant English History 1660-1815. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Scheer, George and Rankin, Hugh. Rebels and Redcoats. New York: World Publishing, 1957.

---

[1] Christopher Hibbert, George III A Personal History. (Great Britain: Basic Books, 1998), 122.

[2] Ibid p.122-123.

[3] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 123.

[4] Richard Pares, King George III and the Politicians. (New York: Clarendon Press, 1953), 50.

[5] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 124.

[6] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 127.

[7] Ibid p.128

[8] Randolph G. Adams, Political Ideas of the American Revolution. (New York: Barnes & Nobles, Inc, 1958), 46.

[9] Pares, King George III and the Politicians, 50.

[10] Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England, XVII, pg. 1280-1281 quoted in Pares, King George III and the Politicians, 78.

[11] Adams, Political Ideas of the American Revoulution, 54.

[12] Speech before the House of Commons in support of Mr. Rose Fuller’s motion that commons move to a committee of the whole in order to discuss the threepence tax on tea April 19, 1774 quoted in Elliott Barkan, Edmund Burke on the American Revolution. ( New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), 25

[13] Ibid p.26

[14] Ibid p.26

[15] Pares, King George III and the Politicians, 91.

[16] Ibid p.91

[17] Wilfrid Prest, Albion Ascendant. (New York: Oxford Press, 1998), 214.

[18] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 143.

[19] Ibid p. 143

[20] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 146.

[21] Ibid p.146

[22] Ibid p.147

[23] Ibid p.147

[24] Ibid p.147

[25] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 142.

[26] Lutnick, The American Revolution and the British Press, 53

[27] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 134.

[28] George F. Scheer and Hugh F. Rankin, Rebels and Redcoat. (New York: World Publishing, 1972), 44.

[29] Ibid p. 45

[30] Ibid p. 45

[31] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 151.

[32] Middlesex Journal February 1 ,1776. Quoted in Lutnick, The American Revolution and the British Press, 35.

[33] Ibid p. 82

[34] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 157.

[35] Ibid p. 157

[36] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 160.

[37] Ibid p. 160

[38] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 163.

[39] Gazetteer, December 25, 1777; Packet, January 12 1778. Quoted in Lutnick, The American Revolution and the British Press, 108.

[40] Ibid p. 108

[41] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 163.

[42] Pares, King George III and the Politicians, 122.

[43] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 162.

[44] Ibid p. 162

[45] Hibbert, George III A Personal History, 164.

[46] Ibid p. 164

[47] General Advertiser, February 28, 1782. Quoted in Lutnick, The American Revolution and the British Press, 197.

[48]Gazetteer, December 26, 178. quoted in Ibid p.193

God, Theology, Israel and the Holocaust.

By Brian Freeman

The Holocaust was the most devastating event in the history of mankind. Hitler’s Nazi Germany killed eleven million people during the Holocaust with six million being Jews. Nazi Germany did not take mercy on men, women or children. They murdered all who where Juden. The Holocaust has left the survivors and the world to ask why? The major question that Jews find to ask themselves is why them? In the movie The Quarrel, the plot revolves around two Jewish Holocaust survivors discussing philosophy, reasoning, and their faith in religion after this horrific event. The two main characters are Hersh and Chaim. Hersh was a Jewish rabbi whose faith was strengthened by his ordeal, and Chaim had escaped the Nazis but lost his faith with the death of his family. In the movie we see many of the issues that the Jews and the theological world debate.

One major issue that comes about is who is to blame. In The Quarrel Chaim blames God for the Nazi Holocaust and states “If I knew God I’d put him on trial.” This brings about a major issue of whether one should blame God for the Holocaust and whether God can be evil. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam traditionally have taught that God is all powerful, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These claims seem to be in jarring contrast with the fact that there is much evil in the world. Mankind constantly commits evil acts of injury to themselves and others. God appears to be incapable of stopping evil or appears to not want to stop evil acts. This brings the next issue of how to reconcile the existence of this view of God with the existence of evil. This is the problem of evil. The issue that is brought to attention is if God is all powerful. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he is good or at least good in the way that humans understand goodness. Humans are imperfect only having limited knowledge and power. God created the earth and gave humans free will. He placed the power of choice so that those who had yielded obedience might possess eternal salvation. What if the Holocaust was apart of God’s divine plan? Hersh suggests that God punished the Jews for not following the law and being sinful. Chaim strongly disagrees with Hersh’s view stating that even Satan himself could not possibly find a sufficient number of sins that would warrant such genocide. One other view point not mentioned in the movie is the Christian view. One can see the holocaust as the breaking of a covenant, or God’s punishment for Jews forsaking Jesus and seeing this as a symbol for Jews to finally convert.

No matter what belief one has, the Holocaust has had a profound effect on the Jewish religion. The Holocaust created a separation among Judaism and a rejection of Jewish tradition. Those who followed the Jewish culture but not the laws began forming entirely new belief systems. This can be seen in The Quarrel as Hersh relates a story about a train trip he once took. A passenger next to him was a Jewish woman and she said to him in a whisper: “I don’t know who you are mister but I just want you to know how embarrassed I get when I see Jews like you dressed from another century. You make the rest of us look ridiculous. If you have to dress like this, the least you can do is stay at home.” When Hersh said that he was Amish and not Jewish, the woman replied, “I have such respect for you people, the way you keep your traditions.” This can be seen as the Jewish women being ashamed of the Jewish traditions. Her reasons for being ashamed may be because Jewish traditions separated themselves from other cultures. Jews refused to assimilate themselves into other cultures which is one of the reasons why they where persecuted. Jews stood conquered and in diasporas by other nations for hundreds of years. The Western world realized the Jewish people needed to be protected and that they needed their own state.

Israel can be seen as Gods reparations to Jews fulfilling the Torah. The Land of Israel was promised to the Jews as their homeland. The state of Israel was a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years. The Holocaust and the reestablishment of the State of Israel is a case unique in human history. This event had been predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament and it constitutes the most important single event of the end times.

Temples of Paestum Italy

By Brian Freeman

Approximately fifty-five miles (ninety kilometers) south of Naples.

Legends tell of the city's founding by Jason and the Argonauts, but archaeologists attribute

Paestum's birth to Greeks from Sybaris 600BC.

Originally called Poseidonia in 273 BC the city became a Roman colony and renamed Paestum.

The people of Paestum never achieved renown in ancient times, its colonial farmers grew extremely rich. Their civic pride is reflected in the three standing temples which are the best

preserved in the entire Greek world.

Õ The temples were dedicated to Hera who was a goddess of fertility and creativity, and later Athena a goddess of art and spiritual wisdom.

Õ The two primary temples, the 550 BC Basilica (Temple of Hera 80 x 178 ft) and the 450 BC temple of Poseidon, were originally dedicated to the fertility goddess Hera.

Õ They were meant to serve as homes for the individual god or goddess who protected and sustained the community.

Õ The building material throughout is the local limestone, which was originally coated with white stucco to smooth over imperfections in the stone and to lend the appearance of marble to the temple.

Õ This Doric temple, a style preferred in the western Greek colonies, still has the colonnades of the peristyle and part of the central interior colonnade.

Õ This structure is the earliest temple at the site and exhibits a

n early form of the Doric order of architecture, employing the system of post and lintel with stone.

Ground Plan of Poseidon Temple

A monumental temple

(about 196 x 80 feet)

Me at Paestum

Map of Paestum

For Futher Reading:

Dinsmoor, William. The Architecture of Ancient Greece, 3^rd edition. New York: W W Norton & Company,1975.

Scranton, Robert. Greek Architecture, 3^rd edition. New York: George Braziller, Inc. 1967.

Spawforth, Tony. The Complete Greek Temples.New York: Thames & Hudson, 2006.

Quick summary of Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano

By Brian Freeman

Olaudah Equiano story Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano is a slave narrative in which the entire story consists of Equiano growing up in Africa, capture, and his enslavement. Equiano brings us to a time when slavery historical had not reached its full height but was social acceptable. The use of Africans for chattel slavery had created an entirely new kind of economy for the English and Africans themselves. In Chapter one we find that Equiano own people sold slaves to Oye-Eboe term given to them that signifies red men living at distance. Equiano defends this practice by his people by stating the slaves sold were prisoners of war, kidnappers, or adulteries. The reader can continue reading and find on page 196 that Equiano people even had there own slaves, but yet he still defends this practice by saying, “How different was their condition from that of the slaves in the West Indies?”

One can even find Equiano challenging the thought process of Europeans. Ever sense the revolution of thought called the Enlightenment whites believed that black Africans were incapable of the highest forms of civilization and therefore fit only for enslavement by their supposed superiors. One can see on page 200 that Equiano directly challenges this idea. He states, “Let the polished and haughty European recollect that his ancestors were once, like the Africans, uncivilized, and even barbarous.” The reader can define this as the Europeans themselves once considered themselves much like the Africans uncivilized and why should they have the right to enslave Africans. The Europeans at one time were no different from the Africans.

The first thing the reader finds in Equiano’s story is how detailed he writes. In some cases Equiano gives mileage, names of cities, or direction he is heading in reference with the sun. His descriptions of growing up in Africa and the stunning moment of being taken away help paint amazing images to the reader. Equiano story has many themes, but there two themes that seem to stand out. The first theme of the story is to show Equiano amazing curiosity of the world. Even in the harshest of times we find Equiano is still amazed of the world that he is being forced to see. This curiosity for the world and western technology will be one the reason Equiano gains his own freedom. Second major theme is the comparison of his African tribe to Jews. He compares rituals and there like struggles.

Equiano, Olaudah. “Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano.” The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. Ed. Henry L. Gates, Jr., and Nellie Y. Mckay. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997.190-213.

Quick history of Aztecs

By Brian Freeman

The area that is now Mexico City is home to many historical moments. One of the most famous and saddest historical moments comes from the period of 13^th and 16th century. During this time period lived an ancient Mesoamerica group called the Aztecs. This ancient group during its peak dominated much of Mesoamerica for centuries till the foreign Spanish invaders forced the downfall of there society. The Aztecs had made many scientific advances, especially in the areas of astronomy and medicine. The Aztecs were in many ways more advanced than the Europeans, but nonetheless they were conquered by the Spanish. The Aztec empire is important part of Mesoamerican history due to its foundation, technological achievements and destruction by outside invaders.

In 1810 Alexander von Humboldt originated the modern usage of "Aztec" as a collective term applied to all the people linked by trade, custom, religion, and language to the Mexica state and the Triple Alliance. The word Aztec is actually referring to certain ethnic groups of central Mexico, who spoke the Nahuatl language. Middle in the 13^th century the Acolhuas of Texcoco and the Tepanecs of Tlacopan, who together with the Mexica formed the Aztec Triple Alliance which has also become known as the "Aztec Empire". The forming of this alliance causes serious problems for the Aztec researchers. Much of the information known about the Aztecs is based archeology rather than historical books of the Aztecs. When alliance formed a new Emperor Tlacaelel completely reformed the Aztec state and religion. Tlacaelel ordered the burning of most of the extant Aztec books claiming that they contained lies. When he committed this act he rewrote the history of the Aztec people. The rewriting led directly to the belief that the Aztecs were always a powerful and mythic nation; forgetting forever a possible true history of modest origins.

The Aztecs made many scientific advances, mostly in the areas of astronomy and medicine. One of the most interesting and remarkable demonstration of the advances made by the Aztecs is Aztec Calendar. The current calendar our society uses today Gregorian calendar which was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII on 24 February 1582. The Aztec calendar has been dated around circa 1479 which is 103 years before the Gregorian calendar. It had 18 months, with each month containing 20 days. Thus, 360 days would constitute one year. The Aztecs, however, had determined that the year contained 365 days. Therefore, they added 5 days called the "Nemontemi", or sacrificial days. These days, when added to the already existing 360, raised the number of days in a year to the astronomically correct number of 365.

In 1519 King Charles of Spain sent Hernán Cortés to the new world. When Cortes arrived, the Aztec civilization was at its height. However, many subject Indian groups, rebellious against Aztec rule, were only too willing to join the Spanish. Initially, the invaders were aided by the fact that the Aztec believed them to be descendants of the god Quetzalcoatl. The story of Cortes recently is being heavily debated among scholars due to the inaccuracies in the written history. Eventually the Aztec revolted, Montezuma was killed, and Tenochtitlán was razed.

The story of the Aztec people is a very interesting and provocative. The Aztec empire is important part of Mesoamerican history due to its foundation, technological achievements and destruction by outside invaders.