theblaze--2020-07-05--VICTORY: Britain concedes America's independence, signs Treaty of Paris

The Treaty of Paris Desk is seen inside of the John Quincy Adams State Drawing Room at the State Department @ @ @ @ @ The Treaty of Paris , which ended the Revolutionary War , was signed on the @ @ @ @ @ MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
PARIS; SEPTEMBER 3, 1783— In a monumentous event that will surely change the balance of power in Europe and across the globe, the British government has signed a treaty recognizing the independence of its former colony, the United States of America.
America's recognition as an independent country formalizes what has long been considered a foregone conclusion since the surrender of Lord Cornwallis' forces in Yorktown, Virginia. After Cornwallis' military disaster, the British government has faced considerable unrest and upheaval, which saw the government of Lord North fall in favor of the Earl of Shelburne, who promptly began negotiations with the American diplomatic team of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Adams had been dispatched to France in 1779 for peace talks that were at that time still very premature. Adams ran personally afoul of French diplomat Charles Gravier, Count of Vergennes, and sources indicate that the bulk of negotiating with the French was carried out by Franklin and Jay.
Together, the trio of negotiators deftly maneuvered through a delicate bargaining situation, and ensured not only that Britain offered generous terms to the Americans, but also that America did not end up as a vassal state of France. According to the terms of the treaty, Britain will be required to return Florida to Spain, but will be permitted to retain its territory in Canada. British forces will immediately commence withdrawal from American territory. America will be granted all other land currently held by Britain on the North American continent as far west as the Mississippi River, greatly enlarging the fledgling country's size and providing plentiful territory for new settlers to claim. The settlement of land west of Appalachia was an especially thorny point of contention between American colonists and the British government prior to the start of the war.
Most surprisingly, the British agreed to terms that did not require the American colonists to pay reparations to loyalists for property damaged during the war. Instead, the treaty simply required Congress to advise each of the American colonies to make restitution for "rights and properties which have been confiscated." Colonists will likewise be required to pay prewar debts to British creditors "in Sterling Money."
The terms of the treaty represent almost total victory for the American negotiating team, and reflect not only America's strong bargaining position, won by the army at Yorktown, and Shelburne's eagerness to put the war behind him, on behalf of Great Britain. Sources inside the French government indicate that Vergennes and others were angered to learn that the Americans had concluded a separate piece with the British. One anonymous French diplomat claimed that America's decision would likely encourage Britain to take a harder line with France than they otherwise would have during the course of negotiating a joint treaty. However, a swift and passionate apology from Benjamin Franklin seems to have averted more open hostility between America and France, and France has even indicated a willingness to extend financial aid to the fledgling country as a way to ensure America's continued indpendence from this day forward.


theblaze--2020-07-04--BREAKING: Cornwallis surrenders in Yorktown; end of war may be in sight

BREAKING : Cornwallis surrenders in Yorktown ; end of war may be in sight

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA (OCTOBER 19, 1781) — After nearly a month of intense battle, Lt. Gen. Charles Cornwallis, commander of the British forces in the southern theater, signed a formal agreement of British surrender today, ending the Battle of Yorktown.
The surrender, which was overseen by Gen. George Washington, marked the end of the bloody battle, which had raged on since September. Washington and Cornwallis began surrender negotiations on Oct. 17 at the Moore House.
Lord Cornwallis did not attend the actual signing of surrender, citing an illness, and sent his second-in-command, Gen. Charles O'Hara, to the ceremony. There, O'Hara carried Cornwallis' sword to American and French commanders.
In all, Cornwallis surrendered nearly 8,000 men and seamen, more than 100 cannons and more than a dozen ships. As British troops marched out to surrender, a band reportedly played the song, "The World Turned Upside Down."
The decisive Continental victory has boosted American morale and many hope it will be the final major battle of the war as American delegates have already begun to discuss what negotiations with the British to formally surrender the war may look like.
The American victory came more than five years after America declared its independence from King George III on July 4, 1776.
The battle began late last month after Gen. Washington with the help of the Marquis de Lafayette, the Count de Rochambeau and the Count de Grasse were able to surround Cornwallis' weathered troops in southern Virginia.
Count de Grasse was able to win a sea victory in early September, defeating the British Navy and preventing them from providing Cornwallis with supplies and reinforcements. That, along with thousands of French reinforcements and Washington's battle-tested troops, proved too much to overcome for Cornwallis.
According to initial reports, 200 to 300 British troops were killed in the battle while an unknown number were wounded when taken prisoner. Less than 100 French and Continental troops were killed, while it is estimated that just over 300 were wounded.
It is reported that a British ship carrying 7,000 men was on its way to provide aid to Cornwallis, but that ship never arrived, potentially because of the French Navy's command of the Chesapeake Bay.


theblaze--2020-07-04--British win Battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina — but suffer significant, heavy losses

British win Battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina — but suffer significant , heavy losses Troops skirmish at the @ @ @ @ @ March 15 , 1781 .
( Photo by : Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via @ @ @

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA (MARCH 15, 1781) — When the smoke cleared March 15, 1781, around North Carolina's Guilford Courthouse, vastly outnumbered British troops forced the Americans to retreat over the hills and into the forests — but suffered significant, heavy losses while the Continental Army remained far more intact.
The tide had been turning in favor of the American forces in the southern colonies since late 1780, marked by Gen. George Washington tapping Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene as commander of the Continental Army in the South.
And one of Greene's first orders of business was to divide his troops in the Carolinas to give his adversary, Lt. Gen. Charles Cornwallis of the British Army, multiple fronts in the region to contend with. Greene's move was a good one, as the Americans bested the British in January 1781 at Cowpens, South Carolina.
Still Cornwallis went after the Continental Army, pursuing it through North Carolina as the weary Redcoats' rations and supplies depleted. And while Greene's forces were on the run, the commander in the South also was rebuilding his forces and continued to do so in Virginia.
Then Greene's troops — now numbering about 4,500 — crossed back into North Carolina on March 14 to prepare for battle and set up camp around Guilford Courthouse, in the north central area of the state.
The next day, despite being heavily outnumbered with just under 2,000 soldiers, Cornwallis decided it was time and the British advanced on the Americans.
The two-hour battle saw the Continental forces discharging heavy fire against the British.
While the Americans gave ground, they counterattacked, which led to a "savage and confused melee," British Battles recorded.
Cornwallis then ordered the firing of grape shot — a canvas bag packed tightly with small slugs and pellets — into the fracas, which killed both Americans and British forces, British Battles noted. With that, the Americans retreated — but the British were in no condition to pursue.
The British lost about a fourth of their forces at Guilford — troops that couldn't be replaced, British Battles added — while Greene's retreating Continental forces suffered far less in the balance. By the numbers: the Redcoats saw 550 of their troops killed and wounded and lost 11 of 19 officers in their Foot Guards. The Americans, on the other hand, saw 250 killed, wounded and captured.
Adding to Cornwallis' misery was lack of supplies and word that an officer on whom he relied a great deal — Lt. Col. James Webster — was dead, British Battles said.
In the final analysis, even from the British point of view, the Battle of Guilford Courthouse proved a "Pyrrhic victory" for the Redcoats — a triumph that levels such a heavy toll on the winner that it's not much of a conquest at all.
Indeed, British statesman Charles James Fox said of Cornwallis' tactical triumph: “Another such victory would ruin the British army."
So Cornwallis gave up his Carolinas campaign and soon led his forces into Virginia — and finally, Yorktown.


theblaze--2020-07-04--France bolsters US resistance against British offensive, officially enters war

French and US officials sign the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance .
( Bettmann/Contributor )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
PARIS, FRANCE (FEBRUARY 6, 1778) — Following U.S. diplomats Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee's meeting with King Louis XVI in December 1776, King Louis XVI announced today that France would officially join the United States' war effort against Great Britain.
The French formally acknowledged the United States and their decision to ally with them against the British, and signed what they called The Treaty of Amity and Commerce, which recognized the States as an independent nation. The treaty also encouraged further trade between France and the States.
The Treaty of Amity and Commerce was directly followed by the The Treaty of Alliance, which formed a military alliance against Great Britain with the stipulations that the States would not accept peace with Great Britain that did not include their independence, and that the French would be allowed to conquer the British West Indies.
Before France's entry into the war, the European nation — for over a year — has been rumored to be providing U.S. soldiers with armaments and supplies.
After many months of deliberation, King Louis XVI — initially a skeptic of the colonies' fledgling republic — made the decision to ally with U.S forces. Sources close to the king say that his blatant hostility toward the British won out over his skepticism of the military viability of the Continental Army.
The French was also reportedly concerned that the French Navy was insufficient and thusly unprepared to enter a war against the British. As a result, sources say that King Louis XVI was reluctant to put the French economy in further debt.
However, the Battles of Saratoga, fought in 1777, were a turning point in convincing King Louis XVI to join the war effort against Great Britain.
After British Gen. John Burgoyne launched an attack against Gen. Horatio Gates and his American forces in the first battle of Saratoga in September 1777, King Louis was convinced of the States' ability to stand on its own two feet after British forces were defeated and surrendered in October 1777.
Leading up to the King's official announcement that the French would back the States' efforts, French foreign minister Charles Gravier had decided that French forces should enter the war after the city of Philadelphia fell to British control in September 1777.
Gravier's decision was as a result of fear that the States would not win the war against the British without French intervention.


theblaze--2020-07-04--Shocking details of starvation, disease, lack of clothing as troops emerge from Valley Forge

Shocking details of starvation , disease , lack of clothing as troops emerge from Valley Forge Washington and Lafayette at @ @ @ @ @ John Ward Dunsmore .
George Washington and Marquis de Lafayette on horseback at winter quarters @ @ @ @ @ ; soldiers huddled around campfire in background .
( Photo by : Universal History Archive/UIG @ @ @ @

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
VALLEY FORGE, PENNSYLVANIA (MARCH 1, 1778) — Winters in Pennsylvania tend to be cold, and this past winter has been no different with its blowing wind and plentiful snow. It appears that a warmer winter could have been wished for by Gen. George Washington and his troops, who have spent this past winter in Valley Forge.
Washington chose the location to settle his troops for the winter because it was only 18 miles northwest of Philadelphia, where the British were stationed. A fairly secure location and defensible, it was close enough to keep tabs on their enemy.
It was soon discovered, however, that given the lack of any existing shelter, the lack of food, money, or, in many cases, clothing for the soldiers, the cold Pennsylvania winter would prove to be a long and costly one.
It has been well documented that the Continental Army has been accustomed to being ill-provisioned, frequently lacking food and often not being paid by the Continental Congress, which claims to lack the funds. This winter, however, privation entered an entirely new dimension with multiple sources coming forward to paint a picture of truly bleak circumstances.
The regiment arrived at Valley Forge knowing their only shelter would be ones in which they themselves constructed. Harvesting timber from miles away, the undernourished troops hauled the logs back to the camp to construct rustic cabins that did little more than protect them from the elements.
Healthy soldiers would have found such conditions difficult. The soldiers in this encampment, however, were far from healthy. Lack of food was a continual issue; the soldiers' primary staple were “firecakes," which is a tasteless mixture of flour and water. Food from the surrounding farms was sparse, as the farmers were far more eager to sell to the British regiments, knowing they would get a good price for their crops, as opposed to being paid in Continental dollars, which are known to hold far less value. That is if the Congress issued any funds at all. And unlike the British, Gen. Washington was adamantly opposed to his troops simply taking what they needed from farms in the area.
In addition to being malnourished, a large percentage of the troops had shockingly little clothing. Only one in four had shoes, and many had no coats or blankets. It was not uncommon to see men with pants in tatters or clothes in the process of rotting off of their bodies. Many were prevented from doing their duties due to their nakedness, being embarrassed to be seen with so little clothing.
Connecticut soldier James Martin shared his experience as he began the winter:
The army was now not only starved but naked; the greatest part were not only shirtless and barefoot, but destitute of all other clothing, especially blankets. I procured a small piece of raw cowhide and made myself a pair of moccasins, which kept my feet, while they lasted, from the frozen ground, although, as I well remember, the hard edges so galled my ankles while on a march that it was with much difficulty and pain that I could wear them afterward. But the only alternative I had was to endure this inconvenience or go barefoot, as hundreds of my companions had to, till they might be tracked by their blood upon the rough, frozen ground.
Gen. Washington, while lamenting the deplorable conditions he and his soldiers were in, couldn't help but praise them for the character they displayed under such circumstances:
No history now extant can furnish an instance of an army's suffering such uncommon hardships as ours has done. To see men without clothes to cover their nakedness, without blankets to lie on, without shoes (for the want of which their marches might be traced by the blood from their feet), and almost as often without provision as with them, marching through the frost and snow, and at Christmas taking up their winter quarters within a day's march from the enemy, without a house or hut to cover them till they could be built, and submitting to it without a murmur is proof of patience and obedience which in my opinion can scarce be paralleled.
Washington pleaded repeatedly with the Continental Congress for funds for his troops, but that availed him little. Additionally, America's loosely coordinated national government places much of the responsibility for funding on the states, and many of them have not followed through on their agreement, claiming lack of funds themselves.
He was also forced repeatedly to seek provision from quartermaster general Thomas Mifflin, who was ineffectual. Circumstances grew to such a dire state that he demanded Gen. Nathanael Greene replace Mifflin, which Greene was hesitant to do, due to the enormity of the task. Once Greene was in place in March 1778, however, things began to improve for Washington and his men.
Of the 12,000 troops that entered Valley Forge in December 1777, an estimated 2,500 died of starvation, disease, malnutrition, or exposure by the spring.


theblaze--2020-07-04--American forces employ controversial tactics in shocking victory over British at Saratoga

American forces employ controversial tactics in shocking victory over British at Saratoga British Gen. John Burgoyne surrenders to American Gen. @ @ @ @ @ , 1777 , following the Battle of Saratoga , New York .
( Photo by @ @ @

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
SARATOGA, NEW YORK (OCTOBER 17, 1777) — Rebel forces lead by Gen. Horatio Gates dealt a shocking blow to the British at the battles at Saratoga, New York. The redcoats led by Gen. John Burgoyne were horrified at the guerrilla tactics employed by the Americans, who are accused of targeted military officers with sharpshooters.
Gen. Burgoyne's plan was to march the 170 miles with his 8,000 troops from loyalist Canada and meet with the rest of the British army to cut off New England from the rest of the colonies. Rebel forces significantly slowed the march down by taking aim at the Native American guides that had aligned themselves with the British to defeat the patriots.
The first battle at Saratoga was a pyrrhic victory for the British, who advanced on a rebel encampment at Freeman's Farm at the cost of significant casualties. Burgoyne sent troops in three columns, but Gates' field commander Benedict Arnold sensed that the patriots would have a better advantage if they met the British in the woods rather than wait to defend their position.
Gates disagreed but after a heated argument that delayed the counterattack for hours, he relented.
Arnold was right — the woods provided the scrappy rebel sharpshooters the cover they needed to strike down the officers, a tactic that horrified the British as being against the rules of standard conduct of war. The British suffered nearly 600 casualties while the rebels only lost 300.
Although many credited Arnold for a considerable portion of the damage inflicted on the British, Gates has removed him as his second-in-command over their many personal disputes.
At the second battle of Saratoga on Oct. 7, Gates won a decisive victory at Bemis Heights despite having fewer troops than Burgoyne. Halfway through the battle, Arnold rode out to lead the troops and showed exemplary bravery that greatly aided the patriots' chances. He suffered a broken leg after being shot during the struggle.
Ten days later on Oct. 17, Burgoyne surrendered to Gates.
"We are sorry to say that Government have received the melancholy accounts that General Burgoyne and his army have been obliged to surrender themselves prisoners of war," reported the Edinburgh Evening Courant.
"After the Provincials had cut off General Burgoyne's supplies," the report continued, "part of his army fell back to secure their retreat to Ticonderoga & the Provincials, on this, surrounded General Burgoyne and the remainder."
"The provincials at first offered them quarter on their laying down their arms & gave them a quarter of an hour to consider of it, but General Burgoyne treated it with contempt & sent for answer that unless they would agreed to give them free passage to England & warranting their safety to their next place for embarkation they would die man by man before they parted with their arms," it continued. "The provincials soon complied with those conditions."
Burgoyne, who is also known as "Gentleman Johnny," lost about 1,000 men in the battles, while the Americans lost only about 500.
Arnold, despite earning a reputation for bravery to the point of recklessness in combat, had previously threatened to abandon the American cause and fight for the British after having his command taken away from him at Ticonderoga.
Various anonymous sources say the shocking upset at Saratoga is causing the Spanish to reconsider joining the French fight against the British. This would be a great boon to the patriots and possibly turn the tide against the British.
Sources: History.com, Wikipedia, Rare Newspapers, the History Channel.


theblaze--2020-07-04--In crucial turning point, Washington and troops claim victory in two battles near Trenton

In crucial turning point , Washington and troops claim victory in two battles near Trenton Gen. George Washington , on @ @ @ @ @ his troops as they cross the Delaware River , near Trenton , New Jersey , @ @ @ @ @ ( Photo by Interim Archives/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY (JANUARY 3, 1777) — In an astonishing turn of events, the Continental Army, led by Gen. George Washington, has scored a much-needed victory in its fight for independence from the British crown. Multiple crushing defeats thus far in the Revolution has left the Continental Army's morale low, leading Washington to wonder how many of his troops might desert him, or not re-enlist.
Washington, aware that he needed a win, finally claimed victory on the morning of Dec. 26, 1776, in Trenton, New Jersey. The victory, along with the rest of the events that have unfolded during the last week have provided a much-needed boost to American soldiers' morale and has renewed their confidence that they can defeat the British in the ongoing war for American independence.
On Dec. 26, Washington decided to take advantage of the fact that the Hessians, the German troops whom the British hired to help fight against the Continental Army, were up late Christmas night celebrating.
Washington and his troops camped on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. Outside, it was cold and snowy, and the river was covered with ice. But none of that stopped Washington and his 2,400 determined troops, who nevertheless set out to cross the icy river in blizzard conditions.
In an early morning raid on Hessian camps in Trenton, Washington and his troops fought for around one hour. They managed to capture more than 800 Hessian troops, and seized a considerable amount of their weapons, from musket and bayonets to swords and cannons, according to Washington's Mount Vernon estate.
American patriots hope that the Continental Army's morale-boosting victory in the First Battle of Trenton will be a critical turning point in the American Revolution.
According to reports, 22 British soldiers died in the First Battle of Trenton. Another 92 were wounded, 918 were captured and 400 escaped. The Continental Army, however, only lost two of its soldiers but only because they froze to death. Another five Americans were injured.
After their victory, Washington led his exhausted troops across the Delaware River back into Pennsylvania. But Washington still had his sights set on the next target, Princeton, New Jersey, where more British-allied forces had set up camp for the winter.
About a week later, on Jan. 2, 1777, Gen. Charles Cornwallis led his British troops from Princeton to Trenton to launch an attack. Washington directed a number of his troops to stave off an attack by blocking a bridge across the Assunpink Creek, according to sources in New Jersey.
Eventually, British troops decided to postpone their next attack until morning. Meanwhile, Washington, in his military genius, had another plan.
Washington instructed around 400 of his troops to stay at Trenton and keep the fires burning to trick the British into thinking they weren't on the move. But Washington sent the rest of his troops to travel on back roads to launch yet another surprise attack on the British, this time at Princeton.
The latter group, led by Gen. Hugh Mercer, met British troops at Stony Brook Bridge and thus commenced the Second Battle of Trenton.
The fight didn't start off well for the Continental Army. Washington and other reinforcements arrived, but the Continental Army still struggled. Then, in a show of admirable leadership, Washington rallied his discouraged troops who, at that point, were ready to retreat.
The American general rode up on horseback and blocked his men from leaving, creating a renewed sense of determination among his soldiers. Washington's encouragement later paid off, as some British troops retreated to Princeton and others to Trenton. Since most went to Princeton, though, Washington and the rest of his army followed.
The British eventually surrendered at Princeton after being surrounded by American troops at Nassau Hall. More than 80 British soldiers were either killed or injured.
Forty American soldiers died or were wounded, according to the state of New Jersey.
In the coming weeks, Washington and his troops are expected to continue to march on British and British-allied soldiers in the fight for independence from Great Britain.


theblaze--2020-07-04--British forces capture New York; Washington lucky to escape with Continental Army intact

Gen. George Washington directs the retreat of the Continental Army across the East River , from Brooklyn to Manhattan , @ @ @ @ @ hands of British forces during the battle of Long Island , Aug. 29 , 1776 @ @ @ @ @ Archives/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
NEW YORK (AUGUST 31, 1776) — The first major battle since America officially declared its independence from Great Britain did not go well for the Continental Army, as American troops were driven from New York in headlong flight.
Worse, Gen. George Washington's conduct in the war has some questioning his strategic ability, as many military experts say that only a series of extremely lucky missteps by the British Army allowed Washington — and the Continental Army with him — to escape the island intact.
The British invasion of New York has long been expected, ever since Gen. William Howe quit the city of Boston following a months-long siege by American forces. Since Howe's flight, American military leadership has anticipated that Great Britain would order him to capture New York, as Britain has made no secret of its plans to win the war by choking off access to the vitally important Hudson River, which is often referred to as the "backbone" of the Mid-Atlantic colonies.
Gen. Washington prepared for the hammer's blow by directing Gen. Charles Lee to prepare the city for battle. Lee devised a plan and erected a series of intricate defenses in the city, envisioning a guerrilla fight in which the British would be forced to take New York "street by street," hopefully suffering tremendous casualties during the course of the battle.
However, when New York's civilian authority learned of this plan, they balked in horror at the possible devastation that might be done to the city by the British war machine if Lee's plan were carried out. Due to confusion about the extent of Washington's authority, Washington felt forced to abandon Lee's plan in favor of a more traditional defense.
According to sources within the Continental Army, some of Washington's officers felt hamstrung by Washington's decision to allow Lee's defenses to be dismantled. According to one Army officer, who asked to remain anonymous, "We never really stood a chance of holding New York, but with those defenses, we at least had a chance to give the British a bloody nose. Without those defenses? We were sitting ducks out there."
Indeed, the chances of a traditional defense were doomed when the British ships, Phoenix and Rose , easily overcame the Continental's river defenses and took control of the harbor virtually unopposed. This allowed the British fleet, numbering some 130 ships, to land aground a force that was many times over the size of Washington's.
In retrospect, Washington was doomed to lose the battle of New York before the first shot was fired; however, some claim that mistakes made by Washington put the Continental Army in position to suffer much heavier losses than they otherwise would have done, and almost caused them to be obliterated entirely.
First, some sources within the military criticized Washington's decision to send home some 900 cavalrymen from Connecticut who arrived to participate in the defense, telling them that they would not be needed. According to one Continental Army officer, who asked not to be identified, Washington's failure to understand the scouting value of this cavalry force allowed the British to achieve complete surprise and completely flank Gen. Israel Putnam, whom some in Congress have blamed for the Army's failure in New York.
Some officers, however, have noted that Putnam was flanked because he was totally unaware that the British had landed some 10,000 soldiers on Long Island, who marched unnoticed for miles up roads unoccupied by Americans. According to this officer, "those troops had to have been kicking up an awful lot of dust and making a ton of noise, and some troops on horseback would have really allowed us to at least know they were coming."
As it was, the main force of the British invading army was able to get completely to the rear of Putnam's forces before Americans were aware, and the result was predictable: Total carnage, combined with chaos and headlong flight. In the first day of fighting, the Continental Army lost around 1,300 men; almost 15 percent of the entire force on Long Island.
Others criticized Washington's decision to split his forces in the face of a numerically superior foe, attempting to defend both Manhattan and Long Island, albeit inadequately.
Although many would have taken advantage of Gen. Howe's curiously slow pace after his initial rout of Putnam's forces on Long Island to quit the defense of the island entirely, Gen. Washington ignored the advice of many on his staff and actually committed reinforcements to Brooklyn, determined to make a show of defending a by-now indefensible position.
Eventually, however, Washington was faced with the reality that his men on Long Island were completely encircled by the Royal Navy and vastly outnumbered, and after a council with his top generals, ordered an attempt to evacuate the remaining troops from Long Island.
The army ultimately may have been saved by a blustering storm that immobilized the Royal Navy and allowed Washington to assemble a rag-tag team of small craft to evacuate his troops to Manhattan under cover of the storm and an extremely dense fog that limited visibility to mere feet.
Although Washington publicly acknowledged the urgent need to leave New York lest the Continental Army be "cut to pieces," sources within the Army said that Washington was obsessed with scoring a "Bunker Hill" style victory of his own, and thus prepared to attempt an ill-advised defense of Harlem Heights. According to sources in the army, Washington only abandoned this surely suicidal plan when Gen. Charles Lee arrived in New York and delivered a dire warning concerning the probable fruits of Washington's proposed plan.
At the very last minute, the Continental Army fled Manhattan, saved by the incredible bravery of Col. John Glover and his Massachusetts soldiers, who fought a desperate action around Pelham Bay to delay the British attack so that the Continentals could achieve a semi-orderly retreat and preserve precious artillery and weaponry, which are already in short supply for the Americans.
Washington was also accused of defying Congress' orders during his retreat from the city. According to congressional sources, Washington sought permission to destroy the city of New York upon his exit, so as to deny its comforts to British soldiers, but Congress refused to acquiesce. However, according to witnesses, fires that destroyed substantial portions of the city were set by men who were known members of the Continental Army.
For his part, Washington has refused to join in the public condemnation of Putnam, and promises that he will avoid risking the fate of the entire Continental Army in a single skirmish with the British in the future.
Americans hope that the lessons Washington has learned in this battle will serve him well as America settles in for what it looks like might be a long war for independence.


theblaze--2020-07-04--'Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown': Congress declares American independence

'Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown ' : Congress declares American independence Members of the Second Continental Congress @ @ @ @ @ of Independence in the Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ .
( Engraving Hulton Archive/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
PHILADELPHIA (JULY 4, 1776) — Two days ago, the Continental Congress, assembled in Philadelphia, voted to declare that the 13 British colonies of America are “Free and Independent," establishing at once the “united States of America" as a separate nation entirely.
“We … the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do," Congress announced.
On July 4, delegates of the 13 colonies adopted the “Declaration," formally severing the colonies from the authority of king of England. This momentous declaration will doubtless serve to escalate the military conflict between Britain and her colonies. Sources close to Congressional leaders indicate that the formal declaration was considered necessary to enlist the aid of the French army, which the colonists consider necessary to winning any military conflict with Britain.
Relying on the “self-evident" truths that “all men are created equal" and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," the members of Congress firmly proclaimed the right of the American people to self-governance and listed a number of “repeated injuries and usurpations" imposed on the colonies by the British crown.
Among those grievances listed are the king's failure to allow the colonists — despite having been full citizens of England — to have adequate representation; the king's decision to repeatedly close the colonies' legislative bodies for choosing with “manly firmness" to reject “his invasions on the rights of the people"; quartering British soldiers in American homes; unjustly “imposing Taxes … without our Consent"; “cutting off … Trade with all parts of the world"; and for waging war against his own people.
Despite its clear declaration of independence from the British kingdom, Congress insisted it has not desired such extreme action, but that it has become necessary because of the unrelenting “Oppressions" of the crown.
“In every stage of these Oppressions," Congress wrote, “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
TheBlaze has learned on July 8, Gen. George Washington, commander of the Continental Army, learned of the “Declaration" in a letter from Congress President John Hancock.
“That our affairs may take a more favorable turn, the Congress have judged it necessary to dissolve the connection between Great Britain and the American colonies, and to declare them free and independent states; as you will perceive by the enclosed Declaration, which I am directed to transmit to you, and to request you will have it proclaimed at the head of the army in the way you shall think it most proper," Hancock reportedly wrote to Washington.
Where these “united States of America" go from here is greatly in dispute, with most European leaders speculating the rebellion will soon be crushed by the British, who have since won a series of important battles against the American forces. However, regardless of how this chapter in history ends, the leaders of the world's newest nation have made it clear where they have placed their trust: in God and each other.
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," congressional members wrote.
The full text of the "Declaration of Independence" appears below:
In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


theblaze--2020-07-04--British forces capture Bunker Hill but suffer heavy casualties

The death of Gen. Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill ( Photo by Barney Burstein/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
BOSTON (JUNE 17, 1775) — British regulars captured a key strategic point in the ongoing siege of Boston today, but suffered staggering losses in the process, leading some to question the leadership of Gens. Thomas Gage and William Howe, as well as Britain's assumed military supremacy in the American colonies.
Last night, some 1,200 American troops, operating under the command of Col. William Prescott, stealthily snuck into Charlestown and dug in on both Bunker Hill and adjacent Breed's Hill. Sources in the American army indicate that Prescott may have disobeyed orders from Gen. Artemis Ward, who ordered Prescott to occupy only Bunker Hill, which would present a fortified and easily defensible position from which to continue the siege. However, for reasons yet unclear, Prescott also undertook to fortify Breed's Hill farther to the southeast.
From Breed's Hill, American artillery was suddenly within range of both the Mystic River and also Boston Harbor, which meant that the American presence there presented an untenable threat to the British forces' supply lines. Accordingly, Gen. Gage promptly ordered that Breed's Hill be retaken at all costs and that the American forces be driven from Charlestown neck. Gen. Howe was given a force of about 2,300 British regulars with orders to eliminate the American threat.
Howe marched his men through the streets of Boston to the Charles River, where they boarded barges to carry them across. They reached the site of their attack point around 3 p.m., accompanied by a naval bombardment from the Royal Navy, and began to march in formation the 2,000 yards up the hill to meet his waiting foe.
The American forces, which had been reinforced on orders from the reportedly furious Gen. Ward, were still hazardously low on ammunition. As such, other than isolated sniper fire, the Americans held their fire until British soldiers were less than 50 yards away, at which point they unleashed a murderous fusillade of bullets into the redcoats' ranks. The close-range fire was so effective that Howe was forced to halt his advance and spend the better part of half an hour regrouping his men for a second charge up the hill.
Again, Americans held fire, this time until the British were even closer, and the results the second time were no less devastating. One British soldier described this second volley of fire as "a continual sheet of lightning." Again General Howe was forced to fall back.
Reports indicate that at this point, Howe's men began to beg with him not to attempt a third assault on the fortified position. Every member of Howe's staff was dead or wounded at this point, and British soldiers have accused the Americans of deliberately targeting officers during the charge. Howe, though, was insistent that the hill must be taken, so he summoned reinforcements for a third charge.
According to reports, the American ammunition situation was so dire at this point that Col. Prescott ordered his men to hold their fire "until you can see the whites of their eyes." This time, the British were allowed to get within 15 yards of the summit before the Americans opened fire. Again, the results were murderous, and British regulars gained the Hill only when Americans ran out of ammunition and were forced to flee. Many were bayoneted or shot by the British out of hand as they fled.
Ultimately, the British removed the American threat from Breed's Hill, but paid heavily for their strategic victory. According to official British reports, 226 British regulars died and an additional 928 were wounded. Americans, on the other hand, suffered 160 dead and 271 wounded in this day's fighting.
Although Gen. Gage issued a proclamation of victory, he also was heard to exclaim to his staff that the Americans "shew a spirit and conduct against us, they never shewed against the French," reflecting his country's poor opinion of American battle prowess in the French-Indian War.


theblaze--2020-07-04--American militiamen force British troops to retreat from Concord

On April 19 , 1775 , the Battle of Concord Bridge takes place with American 'Minutemen ' challenging British forces @ @ @ @ @ exchange of gunfire between American and British forces during the rising tensions between the mother @ @ @ @ @ .
( Photo by Interim Archives/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
BOSTON (APRIL 20, 1775) — American militiamen, after a brief retreat from a small skirmish in Lexington resulting in several dead, have pushed British redcoats out of Concord, giving colonists a victory in what may be the first of many military battles between Britain and defiant American colonists.
In a sequence of events that began late night on April 18, 1775, a plan by British Gen. Thomas Gage to capture American leaders and munitions was foiled when American volunteers were warned of an oncoming attack by British regulars in the town of Concord after British troops exchanged fire at Lexington, Massachusetts, with American patriots.
According to anonymous sources, Gage's plan was to furtively move British regulars to first capture Colonial leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock in the town of Lexington, then advance to Concord where the British planned to seize American stockpiles of gunpowder. Thanks to the efficiency and skill of American intelligence, American forces were forewarned of Gage and his plan. British regulars were slowed by American "minutemen" — American militiamen ready to react at a moment's notice — at Lexington and along the route.
American silversmith and spy Paul Revere revealed that he had received word that British forces, led by British Maj. John Pitcairn, were to advance on Lexington to capture Adams and Hancock. Revere, 41, set up a warning system with North Church's Robert Newman that involved displaying one lantern from the church's steeple in the British were planning to advance from land, and two lanterns if by sea.
Sources say that Newman had displayed two around 10 p.m. on Tuesday, leading Revere and two other riders, tanner William Dawes, and Dr. Samuel Prescott to sprint across the countryside, warning colonists of the oncoming British forces from Boston.
Thanks to the early warning, Adams and Hancock were able to escape from Lexington. Their whereabouts are currently unknown.
Instead of marching into the town unimpeded, witnesses say that on early Wednesday morning, April 19, Pitcairn found himself and his 240 troops face to face with 80 American militiamen under the command of Capt. John Parker in the town of Lexington. Reports from eyewitnesses say that for some time, American and British troops faced each other at the ready, but did not fire.
Conflicting reports describe how the battle began, but according to both sides a shot was heard that started a brief skirmish between the minutemen.
"At 5 o'clock we arrived [in Lexington], and saw a number of people, I believe between 200 and 300, formed in a common in the middle of town; we still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack though without intending to attack them; but on our coming near them, they fired on us two shots, upon which our men without any orders, rushed upon them, fired and put them to flight; several of them were killed; we could not tell how many, because they were behind walls and into the woods," said British Lt. John Barker.
Militiaman Cpl. John Munroe remembers it differently, however.
"After the first fire of the regulars, I thought, and so stated to Ebenezer Munroe ... who stood next to me on the left, that they had fired nothing but powder; but on the second firing, Munroe stated they had fired something more than powder, for he had received a wound in his arm; and now, said he, to use his own words, 'I'll give them the guts of my gun.'," Munroe said. "We then both took aim at the main body of British troops the smoke preventing our seeing anything but the heads of some of their horses and discharged our pieces."
This is the first exchange of gunfire between American and British forces during the rising tensions between the mother country and the American colonists. According to reports, eight Lexington men were killed, and 10 were wounded. Only one British soldier was wounded.
After some difficulty, Pitcairn was able to reassemble his men and march on Concord. Reports say that the British entered the town with little difficulty and began searching for the hidden American munitions. Due to good intelligence and forewarning, however, the American militia were able to hide away a good deal of their munitions, meaning that the British were not unable to find much.
Meanwhile, Concord militiamen gathered just outside of Concord and their strength further increased as volunteers from the neighboring towns rallied around militiaman Col. John Barrett on Punkatasset Hill overlooking Concord.
Witnesses say that once Barrett's forces had reached sufficient strength — over 1,000 men according to reports — he led American militiamen into Concord over the North Bridge, overwhelming the redcoats and forcing their retreat from Concord, and back to Boston. American militiamen reportedly shadowed British troops during their retreat, killing some 125 redcoats, including officers. During the course of the retreat, American forces continued to swell as militia from neighboring towns continued to join the rebel ranks.
By the time the British retreat neared Charlestown, the American militia substantially outnumbered the British regulars and might have completely obliterated the British force. However, American Col. Timothy Pickering, who had assumed command of a large militia force from Salem and Marblehead, allowed the British to escape to defensible positions in Charlestown, where they were reinforced by Gen. Gage.
Col. Pickering alleges that he allowed the British to escape on the orders of Gen. William Heath, a charge that Gen. Heath denies. At present, Gen. Heath has been relieved by Gen. Artemas Ward, who has placed the British forces in Boston under an effective siege.
Militiamen say that while a battle was not intended in Lexington, their victory in Concord has them energized and ready to take on the British forces in the future.


theblaze--2020-07-04--Britain passes the Coercive Acts; they should be called the Intolerable Acts

On May 1 , 1774 , a cartoon — criticizing the Boston Port Bill , introduced as a disciplinary measure @ @ @ @ @ Party riot — represents America as a semi-clothed woman being subdued by the British .
@ @ @ @ @ Boston was no longer recognized as a trading port , by way of punishment .
@ @ @ @ @ the current British Prime Minister , pours down America 's throat a pot of tea @ @ @ @ @ in his face ; the Earl of Sandwich pinions her feet and Lord Mansfield her @ @ @ @ @ behind with the sword of military law ; Britannia averts her eyes from the scene @ @ @ @ @ France and Spain look on with interest .
An engraving by American patriot Paul Revere @ @ @ @ @ the Boston Port Bill debate .
( Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
LONDON (1774) — In response to the activities of Dec. 16, 1773, the British Parliament has passed a series of punitive acts to be revoked only upon the compensation of the East India Company for goods that were allegedly irreparably damaged by American colonists.
The harsh legislation began after a group calling themselves the Sons of Liberty deposited nearly 350 crates of tea into Boston Harbor to protest the Tea Act. The legislation closed the port of Boston, appointed a new military government under Gen. Thomas Gage, and rendered British soldiers immune from prosecution for criminal violations.
In keeping with the Boston Port Act, the British Navy plans to establish a blockade of Massachusetts Bay until the town's unruly residents agree to pay for the tea that was dumped into Boston Harbor in protest. The Massachusetts Government Act has likewise established martial law and curbed the rights of rebellious colonists to gather into groups.
The so-called Administration of Justice Act, passed on May 20, was the final blow in a succession of punishments meted out to the province of Massachusetts, which has been the focal point of American hostility toward the mother country. It renewed the ability British troops exercised under the expired Quartering Act to take residence in unoccupied buildings at the will of the colonial governor.
Parliament continues debate on the Quebec Act, which would allow the French of that region to be governed by the Roman Catholic church and extend its territory into colonial western claims. Under this act, colonists in Boston and the Massachusetts Bay area would not be permitted to govern themselves, and would be cut off from their own independent trade by the British Navy, forcing them to rely on surrounding colonies for food and supplies.
The Quebec Act would punish the citizens of Massachusetts by allowing the French of Quebec to be subject to their own civil laws while Massachusetts would remain under the firm grip of the British Parliament.
Meanwhile, Boston merchants will soon be unable to trade goods because the British will occupy the harbor. Parliament still expects the East India Company to be repaid in full.
A small minority in Parliament, led by Edmund Burke, has begun to speak out against Parliament's treatment of the colonies. In a recent speech, Burke claimed that these Coercive Acts would make British rule intolerable to the American colonies, and might lead to future military conflict and war.
Burke warned that colonists outside of Massachusetts might sympathize with their plight and would likewise fear that Britain would soon intend to meddle in their affairs in a similar manner. Burke offered an impassioned speech in Parliament in favor of a motion to repeal the Tea Tax outright, but the motion was easily defeated in spite of Burke's protests.
It has been suggested in a variety of writings that an inter-colonial conference of some kind be convened to discuss the implications of Parliament's actions for all of the American colonies. One may take place as early as this autumn, though some colonies as yet remain mostly uninterested.
(Sources: History.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, U.S. History Scene)


theblaze--2020-07-04--Patriots storm ships in Boston Harbor, hurl tens of thousands of pounds of expensive tea overboard

On Dec. 16 , 1773 , a group of Bostonians , dressed as Mohawk Indians , board three ships laden @ @ @ @ @ the full crates into the harbor .
This protest against British taxation on tea imports @ @ @ @ @ closer to Revolutionary War against Great Britain .
( Photo by Edward Gooch/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
BOSTON (DECEMBER 16, 1773) — A group of local colonists upset with British Parliament's controversial Tea Act took matters into their own hands tonight and dumped hundreds of chests of East India Company tea into Boston Harbor.
More than 100 men, many disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded three ships at Griffin's Wharf this cold December evening and in the course of three hours tossed nearly 350 crates containing 90,000 pounds of tea overboard. The financial damages are expected to approach 10,000 British pounds.
According to local sources, the men are members of a secretive group known as the Sons of Liberty and were acting at the urging of one of their most-provocative leaders, Samuel Adams. Adams and his group have rallied against multiple attempts by Great Britain to impose taxes and regulations on colonists who have no government representation in London.
The Tea Act, which passed in May, was simply another move by British rulers to assert increased sovereignty over the colonists through taxation, the Sons of Liberty and other opponents of the measure said. Parliament's goal, they added, was to prop up the failing government-backed East India Company.
The EIC has long had a government-instituted monopoly on tea in England, where the company has, until recently, been required to sell all of its tea. The high British duties on tea that the EIC has been forced to pay — coupled with a dire famine in India and a booming black market for cheaper tea in the colonies — have led to crashing tea sales and massive financial losses for the company.
English merchants have for decades turned around sold the tea to the American colonies, where a second duty is then collected.
Leaders of the EIC convinced Parliament this spring to pass the Tea Act, which allowed the company, for the first time in its history, to sell tea on consignment directly to a preferred set of sellers in the American colonies' four most populous ports — New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Boston.
The act gave the East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in America and offered refunds to the EIC for tea duties paid in England. However, the duties in the colonies remained untouched. By cutting out the middlemen and allowing for at least some duty relief in England, the EIC was set to undercut tea prices in America.
But the law didn't impact only the illegal tea-smuggling business.
Local merchants who have long imported EIC tea from England and were not granted the opportunity to buy directly from the EIC have reported that they, too, have seen tea sales plummet. Some of these businessmen fear that the efforts by Parliament to save the favored trading company will force them to close up shop.
The impact on local businesses and the belief that the British crown has once again trampled the rights of colonists who have no voice in the government have led to a movement up and down the East Coast to keep EIC tea off American shores.
Earlier reports from the three other cities where consignees were scheduled to receive EIC tea revealed just how significant the movement to stop the shipments really was. The preferred, government-approved local sellers at all three ports resigned their consignment agreements in early December as addition tea shipments arrived. In New York and Philadelphia, the EIC tea ships were forced to return to England with their cargo. And in Charleston, the tea was taken by local authorities.
But even as people in other colonies banded together to convince their colonial governors to abandon the Tea Act scheme and worked with American ship owners and their captains to avoid destruction of property, the authorities in Massachusetts have been slow to bend. Loyalist Gov. Thomas Hutchinson, whose sons received preferred-seller status from the EIC, repeatedly stated that the American-owned tea ships would be permitted to dock and the tea unloaded.
However, Adams and his fellow Sons of Liberty made it clear to Hutchinson that they would not be backing down any time soon, going so far as to station guards at the port over the last several days to prevent the tea from being removed from the ships.
According to witnesses, anti-Tea Act Patriots left a meeting with Adams earlier today, made their way to Boston Harbor, and boarded the vessels without permission. The activists then proceeded to toss the EIC tea into the sea water, making clear all the while that they would no longer stand for British curtailment of colonists' rights.
Sources in England say that even Britons and members of Parliament who are sympathetic to colonists' complaints see this event as a bridge too far and expect that the action will force the British government to retaliate.
Hutchinson has long urged London to crack down on the Sons of Liberty. Observers now expect that the governor might just get his wish.


theblaze--2020-07-04--'Boston Massacre' leaves five dead, questions remain

On March 5 , 1770 , British soldiers open fire on a crowd of Bostonians , killing five people , @ @ @ @ @ the `` Boston Massacre . ''
The Americans were demonstrating against the Townshend Duties — @ @ @ @ @ and the massacre fueled their resentment of the British even more .
A drawing by @ @ @ @ @ in 1868 .
( Photo by Hulton Archives/Getty Images )

Editor's note: In order to allow our staff to enjoy the 4th of July holiday with their families, TheBlaze will be running a series of articles today commemorating the Revolutionary War, which won America her freedom. God bless America, and all of you.
BOSTON (MARCH 6, 1770) — Five people are dead and six more wounded after a tense confrontation yesterday at the Custom House between British soldiers and residents in Boston.
Several years of ongoing tension between Boston residents and British troops stationed in the area boiled over after Pvt. Hugh White allegedly struck Boston man Edward Garrick on the side of the head with his musket. Garrick had reportedly been shouting a slew of insults at White and another soldier stationed at the Custom House.
According to witnesses, Garrick then rallied other residents in the area to push back against the soldiers, who were stationed there to maintain order in the area after the passing of the Townshend Acts. As the crowd size reportedly neared 50 and tensions escalated, White called for backup from the nearby barracks.
Capt. Thomas Preston arrived on scene shortly after, accompanied by six other soldiers of the 29th Regiment of Foot, all armed with fixed bayonets. Reports then indicate that the raucous crowd surrounding the soldiers, which grew up to 400 men, began throwing snowballs and ice at the troop of soldiers.
"Come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, G** damn you, fire and be damned, we know you dare not," one unidentified Boston man allegedly said to the soldiers.
"Fire and be damned," others in the crowd allegedly chanted at the soldiers.
According to authorities, although Preston gave no command for his troops to fire, an altercation between Pvt. Hugh Montgomery and an angry resident led to Montgomery discharging his weapon, but some conflicting reports indicate Montgomery's weapon went off as he was knocked to the ground. Though Preston told authorities he never told his men to fire, others could be heard yelling "fire" into the crowd as the soldiers shot at the angry mob.
Five men died in the altercation, including Crispus Attucks, a former runaway slave. Six others were treated for their injuries and released.
Preston and eight other soldiers were arrested on the scene and charged with manslaughter. A trial date for the soldiers has not yet been set.


theblaze--2020-07-06--Wave of criticism smashes Lin-Manuel Miranda as leftists declare 'Hamilton' to be 'problematic'

Wave of criticism smashes Lin-Manuel Miranda as leftists declare 'Hamilton ' to be 'problematic' Leftists trying to cancel ‘ Hamilton @ @ @ @

The circular firing squad of progressivism has taken aim on one of its former darlings. Leftists loved the musical "Hamilton" when it hit Broadway in January 2015. Democratic leaders, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and the Obama family, flocked to see Lin-Manuel Miranda's musical over the years. The musical is based on founding father Alexander Hamilton but with a modern twist and heavy influence of hip-hop.
Flash forward to 2020, and now the progressives say the founding fathers should solely be remembered for being slave owners, and all of their achievements have been nullified by many leftists. Some progressives not only declare that the founding fathers should no longer be admired, but they call for their statues to be ripped down. Now, there are people who want to cancel the "Hamilton" musical because it is based on the founding fathers. Many of the harsh critics are the same people who made the musical into a cultural leviathan.
"Hamilton" was trending on social media this weekend as the film-version made its debut on Disney Plus. There was also an undercurrent of leftists saying that "Hamilton" is "problematic."
"Are y'all ready to talk about how problematic Hamilton is? Lin Manuel Miranda created a piece of work that used hip hop (a genre created by black people) to tell the story of colonizers and slave owners," one Twitter user wrote.
"As much as I love the show, it and it's writer are deeply problematic," another wrote. "I've intentionally or unintentionally ignored these things for years, but I'm trying to fix this now so I can fully contextualize and understand Hamilton and it's effect as a whole."
"Hamilton is deeply problematic in concept and so is Lin Manuel Miranda to some degree," another person tweeted.
"I mean I think the fact that a musical like Hamilton (which is deeply problematic and nationalist) has to exist in order for non-white actors to have a space on Broadway is just very indicative of how non-white stories will never be able to thrive on this elitist medium," another person said.
"Reminder for all y'all Hamilton watching mofos: Hamilton was a racist slaveowner, and casting POC as white bigots isn't the reclamation you think it is," read a tweet that had nearly 60,000 likes. "It's a romanticized telling of a white man's plights, so none of y'all better be stanning the founding fathers AGAIN."
Ajamu Baracka, a self-described "international human rights activist," blasted Miranda.
"Lin-Manuel Miranda is a Puerto Rican Uncle Tom who instead of fighting for independence makes feel-good revisionism for white liberals. He is pathetic," Baracka said.
In May, Miranda and "Hamilton" creator Jeffrey Seller were forced to apologize because people criticized them for not supporting Black Lives Matter sufficiently and not speaking enough about police brutality and the George Floyd protests.
"We spoke out on the day of the Pulse shooting. We spoke out when Vice President Mike Pence came to our show 10 days after the election. That we have not yet firmly spoken the inarguable truth that Black Lives Matter and denounced systematic racism and white supremacy from our official 'Hamilton' channels is a moral failure on our part," Miranda said in a video. "As the writer of the show, I take responsibility and apologize for my part in this moral failure."
"'Hamilton' doesn't exist without the black and brown artists who created and revolutionized and changed the world through the culture, music and language of hip-hop," he added. "Literally, the idea of the show doesn't exist without the brilliant black and brown artists in our cast, crew and production team who breathe life into this story every time it's performed."
"It's up to us and words and deeds to stand up for our fellow citizens," he concluded. "It's up to us to do the work to be better allies and have each other's backs."
Seller apologized by saying, "I'm not a politician. I'm not an activist. I'm not an expert. I'm a theater producer. But what I realize today is most importantly I'm an American citizen, and silence equals complicity and I apologize for my silence thus far."
The cancel culture mob comes for everyone.


theblaze--2020-07-05--Pro-police activists change just one letter in 'Defund the Police' mural to completely change meanin

Pro-police activists change just one letter in 'Defund the Police' mural to completely change meaning

Pro-police activists change just one letter in 'Defund the Police ' mural to completely change meaning

A "Defund the Police" mural painted outside the Milwaukee City Hall received a makeover from law enforcement supporters last week that completely changed the painting's message.
According to WITI-TV, the words "Defund the Police" were painted onto the street outside Milwaukee City Hall last Wednesday. Other cities across the country have taken similar action to show support for social justice movements.
But on Friday, pro-police activists painted over one letter to completely change the meaning of the painting.
The activists changed the "u" in the word "defund" to an "e" — turning the anti-law enforcement message on its head to read, "Defend the Police."
Image source: WITI-TV screenshot
However, just hours after the anti-police mural was altered, the city had reverted the painting to again communicate an anti-law enforcement message, WITI reported.
Activists reportedly painted the mural without permission from the city.


theblaze--2020-07-05--City in China issues a bubonic plague alert

The warning forbids the hunting and eating of animals that could carry the plague and will be in effect through @

Health officials from a city in the Chinese region of Inner Mongolia issued a bubonic plague warning on Sunday after a suspected case of the highly infectious disease known as the "Black Death" was revealed.
The health committee of the city of Bayannur issued a third-level alert, the second-lowest category in a four-level system. The notice requests citizens to report any suspected cases of plague or fever with no apparent causes. It forbids the hunting and eating of animals that could carry the plague. The alert also instructed the public to report any sick or dead marmots. The warning period will be in effect through the end of the year.
"There were four reported cases of plague in Inner Mongolia last November, including two of pneumonic plague, a deadlier variant of plague," according to the Independent. A Mongolian couple died of the bubonic plague after eating raw marmot kidney.
The bubonic plague is one of three types of plague caused by bacterium Yersinia pestis, a zoonotic bacteria usually found in small mammals and their fleas.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlines what people experience when they are infected with the bubonic plague:
Patients develop sudden onset of fever, headache, chills, and weakness and one or more swollen, tender and painful lymph nodes (called buboes). This form is usually the result of an infected flea bite. The bacteria multiply in the lymph node closest to where the bacteria entered the human body. If the patient is not treated with appropriate antibiotics, the bacteria can spread to other parts of the body.
During the 14th century, the Black Death caused more than 50 million deaths in Europe. Thanks to antibiotics, the CDC says the mortality rate is approximately 16% these days, far less deadly than in the Middle Ages.
From 2010 to 2015, there were 3,248 bubonic plague cases reported worldwide, including 584 deaths, according to the World Health Organization.
From 2009 to 2018, China reported 26 cases and 11 deaths, according to Reuters. The CDC reports that there is an average of seven human plague cases in the U.S. each year.
This comes a week after researchers in China discovered a new type of swine flu that is able to infect humans. The G4 virus is a strain of the H1N1 swine flu that exhibits "all the essential hallmarks of a candidate pandemic virus."
On Friday, the WHO admitted that China did not inform them of the original COVID-19 outbreak.


theblaze--2020-07-05--NBA releases list of 'approved messages' for player jerseys — it's a social justice warrior's dream

NBA releases list of 'approved messages ' for player jerseys — it 's a social justice warrior 's dream They @ @ @ @ @ Lives Matter '' onto the hardwood courts

The National Basketball Association announced on Friday the list of "approved messages" that players will be allowed to display on the back of their jerseys when the season resumes play later this month.
According to ESPN, the NBA and National Basketball Player's Association, the league's player union, agreed to 29 words and phrases that can be displayed on a player's jersey, above their number, in the space where their last name is typically located.
The list includes words and phrases such as: "Black Lives Matter," "How Many More," "Power to the people," "I Can't Breathe," "Anti-Racist," among others.
Players will be allowed a first and second choice, ESPN reported. If a player chooses not to use a word or phrase from the approved list, their last name will be displayed as usual.
The messages will be displayed for the first four nights of resumed play. After those games, a player can replace the approved word or phrase with their last name. However, if they want to continue displaying the social justice message, their name will be placed below their number.
"The league and the players are uniquely positioned to have a direct impact on combating systemic racism in our country, and we are committed to collective action to build a more equal and just society," NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said. "A shared goal of our season restart will be to use our platform in Orlando to bring attention to these important issues of social justice."
The NBA will also paint "Black Lives Matter" on the hardwood playing floor when games resume July 30.
Here's the full list of 'approved messages':


theblaze--2020-07-05--Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth says she's open to tearing down George Washington, Thomas Jefferson

Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth says she's open to tearing down George Washington, Thomas Jefferson statues

Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth says she 's open to tearing down George Washington , Thomas Jefferson statues The Illinois senator @ @ @ @ @ speech at Mount Rushmore , 'Standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans '

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who is among the shortlist of potential running mates for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, said she is open to listening to arguments for removing statues of founding fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Duckworth made the comments on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.
Show host Dana Bash asked Duckworth: "Senator, I know that you support change in the name of military bases named after Confederate leaders, but there are leaders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who were slave owners. And some people are demanding their monuments come down, too. In your view, where does it end? Should statues, for example, of George Washington come down?"
Duckworth originally put off answering the question about removing statues, and instead focused on President Donald Trump's speech at Mount Rushmore on the eve of Fourth of July.
"Well, let me just say we should start off by having a national dialogue on it at some point," Duckworth said. "But right now we're in the middle of a global pandemic. And one of our countries that are opposed to us, Russia, has put a bounty on American troops' heads."
"What really struck me about this speech that the president gave at Mount Rushmore was that he spent more time worried about honoring dead Confederates than he did talking about the lives of our 130,000 Americans who lost their lives to COVID-19, or by warning Russia off of the bounties they're putting on Americans' heads," the Democratic senator said.
"His priorities are all wrong here," she continued. "He should be talking about what we're going to do to overcome this pandemic. What are we going to do to push Russia back? Instead, he had no time for that. He spent all his time talking about dead traitors."
Bash then reiterated her question, and asked if removing statues of Washington is a "good idea."
"I think we should listen to everybody," Duckworth responded. "I think we should listen to the argument there, but remember that the president at Mount Rushmore was standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans who had actually been given that land during a treaty."
Last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is in favor of putting historical statues up for review as to whether they should be removed or not.
The argument for removing monuments of former presidents Washington and Jefferson is because they were slave owners. The movement to tear down historical statues has gained traction following the George Floyd protests.
A statue commemorating Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was voted to be removed in Boston, and there is pressure to tear down an Honest Abe statue in Wisconsin. The American Museum of Natural History in New York City is removing a statue of Theodore Roosevelt.


theblaze--2020-07-05--VIDEO: Far-left protesters celebrate July 4th by burning, stomping American flag outside White House

Far-left protesters celebrated American independence outside the White House on Saturday by burning and stomping on the American flag .
@ @ @ @ @ White House following President Donald Trump 's Independence Day speech showed protesters defiling Old Glory @ @ @ @ @ was never great ! ''
`` Know what this f***king flag represents , '' one @ @ @ @ @ others in a chant .
`` One , two , three , four , slavery @ @ @ @ @ , '' the protesters scream .
`` Five , six , seven , eight , @ @ @ @ @ America was never great .
America was never great . ''
The following videos contain @ @ @ @ @ to The Hill , the demonstrations were organized by a group with communist principles .
@ @ @ @ @ Lives Matter protesters say , `` F*** the 4th of July , F*** the American @ @ @ @ @ videos showed demonstrators dance on the American flag .

Far-left protesters celebrated American independence outside the White House on Saturday by burning and stomping on the American flag.
Video taken from outside the White House following President Donald Trump's Independence Day speech showed protesters defiling Old Glory while shouting, "America was never great!"
"Know what this f***king flag represents," one protester says, before leading others in a chant.
"One, two, three, four, slavery, geno-cide, and war," the protesters scream. "Five, six, seven, eight, America was never great. America was never great. America was never great."
(Content Warning: The following videos contain strong language):
According to The Hill, the demonstrations were organized by a group with communist principles.
The flag-burning was organized by the Revolutionary Communist Party. A speak out before the event was held by Refuse Fascism, which also held protests nationwide on July Fourth calling for the removal of Trump and Vice President Pence from office. Refuse Fascism posted on its website that it also created and then tore down a "statue" of Trump outside of Trump Tower in New York.
Other videos showed alleged Black Lives Matter protesters say, "F*** the 4th of July, F*** the American flag," while other videos showed demonstrators dance on the American flag.


theblaze--2020-07-05--Violence erupts in Chicago: 67 shot, 13 killed, including a 7-year-old girl, over July 4th weekend

This is the third week in a row that young children have been shot dead in Chicago

There have already been at least 67 people shot in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend. Within four hours, from 11 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday, 36 people were shot. There were at least 13 killed during the holiday weekend, including a 7-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy.
Nine of the weekend's shooting victims were minors, a worrying trend of children being shot and killed in Chicago. A 7-year-old girl was killed over the holiday weekend.
Natalie Wallace was playing on a sidewalk outside of her grandmother's home around 7 p.m. on Saturday in the city's Austin neighborhood when three men got out of a car and sprayed more than 20 rounds in the direction of a family's Fourth of July party, which had children present. The 7-year-old was shot in the forehead and pronounced dead at the Stroger Hospital of Cook County.
"Tonight, a 7-year-old girl in Austin joined a list of teenagers and children whose hopes and dreams were ended by the barrel of a gun," Mayor Lori Lightfoot said on Twitter. "We cannot grow numb to this. We are making progress in slowing shootings, but we have to do better, every single one of us."
A 14-year-old boy was shot and killed in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood on the South Side. The attack, which happened at a large gathering, killed four people, and wounded four others, including an 11-year-old boy and a 15-year-old boy.
This is the third week in a row where a young child died from gun violence in Chicago. In the two weeks leading up to the Fourth of July weekend, seven children under the age of 18 were killed in Chicago.
A 20-month-old toddler, Sincere Gaston, was killed last weekend after being hit with a stray bullet while riding in a car with his mom. "I am lifeless," said Yasmine Miller, the boy's mother. "That was my world. They came and took a piece of us. Broke us. He stole my baby from me."
The baby's grandmother said the boy's death comes nearly six years to the day when one of her sons was killed by gun violence. "To have to do this again and watch my baby walk in the shoes I had to walk in," Eve Binion said. "Wake up every day and push yourself to keep moving. Enough is enough."
A 3-year-old boy was shot and killed over Father's Day weekend. Mekhi James was killed on his way home after getting a haircut. He was shot while in the backseat of a car. "It hurts! It hurts!" the boy cried out after being struck in the back by the bullet.
"I am not supposed to be standing here," Myesha James, the boy's mother, said. "My boy, my boy. You mean the world to me," James said. "I can't put it words. That's I why I keep saying 'my boy.' I can't put what he means to me in words."
Lena Nunez, who was 10-years-old, was shot and killed while visiting her uncle's home in Logan Square last weekend. A stray bullet came through a window and struck her in the head, according to Chicago police.
Amaria Jones was killed two weeks ago. The 13-year-old was showing her mom a dance move she learned from TikTok when she was shot. The bullet went through a window into Amaria's home, through her family's television, and struck her in the neck, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
"Showing me a dance, she got shot in the throat and fell to the floor and reached out to me. And there was nothing I could do. Nothing," Amaria's mother, Lawanda Jones, said through tears. "To watch your baby bleed to death — my life will never be the same. Never."
According to Chicago police, 63 people were shot, 16 fatally were shot last weekend. Over Father's Day weekend, 104 people were shot in Chicago, and 15 were killed. It was the highest number of gun violence victims this year.


theblaze--2020-07-05--White couple charged with felony for pulling gun on black woman

White couple charged with felony for pulling gun on black woman The man seen in the viral video has been @ @ @ @

A white couple has been arrested and charged with a felony after a video went viral showing a white woman pull a gun on a black woman.
Jillian Wuestenberg, 32, and Eric Wuestenberg, 42, from Clarkston, Michigan, were arrested and charged with felonious assault on Thursday, according to the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office. The charge carries a potential sentence of up to four years in prison.
They were arraigned, and each was given a $50,000 personal bond. As part of the condition of the bond, they must surrender all firearms, not engage in "assaultive behavior," and prohibited from leaving Michigan, Sheriff Michael Bouchard said in a statement. The husband and wife both have concealed pistol licenses. Deputies seized two handguns from the Wuestenberg's after they were detained.
The couple, who are white, got into an altercation with a black woman and her daughters at the parking lot of a Chipotle in Orion Township around 6 p.m. on July 1.
The husband and wife were captured on a three-minute video getting into an altercation with Takelia Hill, who is black. The argument allegedly started after Jillian Wuestenberg bumped into Hill's teenage daughter as they were entering the restaurant, according to Hill.
Hill calls Jillian Wuestenberg a "dumb a** b***h," and then points a finger at Eric Wuestenberg and threatens him, "You say something and I'll beat your white a** up."
The daughter calls the couple "ignorant" and "racist."
The husband and wife then get in their vehicle during the dispute. Jillian Wuestenberg rolls down her car window and tells Hill, "White people aren't racist," and, "I care about you." Eric Wuestenberg, who is driving, starts to slowly back the car out of the parking spot. Hill walks behind the car and believes he is trying to run her over. She punches the car.
Jillian Wuestenberg gets out of the car, pulls her gun out, and tells Hill, "Get the f*** away! Get away!" She tells her husband to call the police. She eventually gets back in her vehicle, and they drive away.
"There was a bump as they entered and exit. The one person said they didn't realize they had bumped the person with the food bag and the other person felt they needed to get an apology and it escalated from there," Bouchard said at a news conference on Thursday.
"There's a lot of tension in our society, a lot of tension among folks and people with each other," Bouchard said. "I would just say this, we are asking and expect our police — and rightfully so — to deescalate every situation they possibly can, and we should be doing that. But I would say that needs to happen with us individually in our own lives and situations, that we interact with each other and deescalate those moments."
After the video went viral with millions of views on social media, Eric Wuestenberg was fired from his job at Oakland University, which is near Detroit. He worked as a veterans support services coordinator, according to the university's website.
"We have seen the video and we deem his behavior unacceptable," the university said in a statement released on Friday. "The employee has been notified that his employment has been terminated by the university."
The Wuestenbergs are next scheduled to appear in court for a probable cause hearing on July 14.


theblaze--2020-07-05--Incredible video shows how defiant Californians responded to ban on Fourth of July celebrations

Last week, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, demanded that his city's residents cancel their Fourth of July celebrations over fear of spreading coronavirus — and even outlawed firework shows in Los Angeles County, according to KABC-TV.
"We're going to have to celebrate differently this year. Everyone should cancel plans with others for the 4th of July. You shouldn't gather with anyone who doesn't live in your household. Please stay home and save lives — it's that simple," Garcetti said.
But video taken from Los Angeles after the sun went down Saturday showed how defiant Californians responded — with a skyline full of beautiful fireworks.
Here's a time-lapse of the Los Angeles skyline Saturday night:
As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, "God bless the good people of California."


theblaze--2020-07-05--Colin Kaepernick bashes America on July 4th — but had completely different message when Obama was pr

Colin Kaepernick bashes America on July 4th — but had completely different message when Obama was president 'We reject your @ @ @ @ @

Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL quarterback turned activist, denounced America on Independence Day this year — but he had a completely different message when Barack Obama was president.
In his Fourth of July message, Kaepernick claimed the national holiday, marking America's independence from Great Britain, is a "celebration of white supremacy."
"Black ppl have been dehumanized, brutalized, criminalized + terrorized by America for centuries, & are expected to join your commemoration of 'independence', while you enslaved our ancestors. We reject your celebration of white supremacy & look forward to liberation for all," Kaepernick said.
Kaepernick has turned up the volume on his anti-America rhetoric in recent years, especially in the wake of his departure from the NFL.
Last year, on Thanksgiving Day, Kaepernick bashed America while celebrating "Unthanksgiving Day."
"The US government has stolen over 1.5 billion acres of land from Indigenous people. Thank you to my Indigenous family, I'm with you today and always," Kaepernick said.
Then, after U.S. armed forces killed Iran military commander Qassem Soleimani, Kaepernick accused the U.S. of engaging in racist "terrorist attacks."
"There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism," Kaepernick said. "America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad. America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world."
However, when Obama was president, Kaepernick sang a much different tune on Independence Day.
In 2011, Kaepernick said, "Happy 4th of july everyone I hope everyone has a blessed day."
In 2012, Kaepernick said, "Hope everyone has a blessed 4th, as for me I'm on that workout flow first."