I am making a timeline of every day of the year and I am struggling to find stuff I was wondering if there was someone who had some facts for me.
A fundamental aspect for understanding the first republican and independence movements in Brazil is the history of how the independence of the thirteen colonies in North America, which formed the United States, influenced the Brazilian elites through the dissemination of republican ideals, in a diplomatic effort by the new nation that emerged to consolidate itself on the world stage.
The political ideology, basically the monarchical principle versus the republican principle, appeared as a disconcerting and divisive problem in the context of diplomacy. The first minister of the United States sent to Rio de Janeiro criticized the administration of the government under the monarchical system and on one occasion insulted the Portuguese royalty. Ideological friction increased during the Pernambuco revolt of 1817. This republican revolt, attracting considerable support in the United States, contributed to tense relations between the Portuguese regency and the government in Washington when the American consul in Recife, Joseph Ray, publicly supported the Pernambuco revolutionaries who sought independence and secession from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves and the creation of a Republic in the Northeast, modeled after the United States of America.
Ray opened his home to rebel leaders such as Antônio Gonçalves da Cruz “Cabugá”, who later traveled to the USA as a representative of the revolution. During the three months of the Republic of Pernambuco's existence, Cabugá acquired weapons and ammunition in the United States and sent them to Brazil. The Norfolk Herald Office newspaper reported on the revolution's progress and objectives. With the headline "Highly important! Revolution in Brazil!", the article reported that the movement had begun after a disagreement between military officers. He emphasized that when a colonel attempted to imprison the guilty parties, some officers resisted, and in the meantime, the governor's cabinet officer was killed, generating setbacks that fueled the rebellion that took to the streets.
This news had repercussions and would be reproduced in the National Intelligencer of April 29, in the Georgetown Messenger of May 2, and in the Boston Patriot of May 17. The merchant Charles Bowen, one of the financiers of the Revolution, made commitments with the authorities in Washington, and in Baltimore he bought weapons and ammunition from the Vankass & Brune and Thomas Tennat & Co. stores. This war material was dispatched to Pernambuco in two ships, which set sail on May 6 and 7, 1817.
Great book to celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday. Start at the VERY beginning:
Columbus is not a villain: Professor says explorer has been seriously maligned
Posted on October 9, 2017
By William Nardi - University of Massachusetts Boston
While hundreds of colleges around the country have started to mark Indigenous Peoples’ Day instead of Columbus Day, calling the explorer a racist and blaming him for genocide, one professor says Christopher Columbus is not a villain and his legacy has been maligned.
Stanford professor emerita Carol Delaney, who taught at the university’s department of cultural and social anthropology for nearly 20 years, says Columbus did not condone many of the things he is accused of doing.
“Christopher Columbus writes very favorably about the natives he met and dealt with,” Delaney told The College Fix. “He continually told his men not to go marauding, raping, plundering and even executed two of his own men who did that.”
Columbus did not seek to cross the Atlantic to enslave people, Delaney said.
“His goal was to finance the crusade to reclaim Jerusalem after it had been taken by Muslims so Christ could come back and save the Christians,” she said. “His intention was to find Asia and instead found the new world.”
Columbus is not a villain, she said. As for Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Delaney says she would support a day to celebrate their culture, but not to replace Columbus Day.
“Students should read my book Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem before forming an opinion,” Delaney said.
“Rather than an avaricious glory hunter, Delaney reveals Columbus as a man of deep passion, patience, and religious conviction,” according to the book’s online description.
The book was based on extensive archival research, fieldwork in Spain and Italy, and his writings.
“She depicts him as a thoughtful interpreter of the native cultures that he and his men encountered, and unfolds the tragic story of how his initial attempts to establish good relations with the natives turned badly sour, culminating in his being brought back to Spain as a prisoner in chains,” the description states. “Putting Columbus back into the context of his times, rather than viewing him through the prism of present-day perspectives on colonial conquests, Delaney shows him to have been neither a greedy imperialist nor a quixotic adventurer, as he has lately been depicted, but a man driven by an abiding religious passion.”
Delaney told The Fix that Columbus’ voyages were complicated and difficult, and extenuating circumstances affected them. For example, during his first voyage, the Santa Maria went aground.
“He had to leave men there, and that’s when he brought settlers back in the second voyage,” she said. “When he came back, all of the men were killed.”
Delaney said a priest who traveled with him said they must kill the native chief in retaliation, to which Columbus replied: “Absolutely not, we will find out what happened.” It turns out the chief had nothing to do with why Columbus’ men were dead, she said.
As for Columbus’ relations with the Native Americans, Delaney says they were so friendly that “the chief’s son was his interpreter and sailed back to Spain with him.”
“There were slaves that were sent back eventually on the third or fourth voyage, and they were thought to be cannibals,” the scholar added. “The Pope said anybody that was a cannibal could be enslaved so he had a part in it.”
A security guard was ask at my job if he celebrates the 4th of July. He said no. He said he only celebrates Juneteenth. I never said anything about it on how he answered, but in my mind, I had a thought, if the US did not win it's Independence from England, would Juneteenth exist?
This is the official thread for the puzzle on March 8, 2026 - Puzzle 87 - Sports GOATs. This is a thread for discussing today's puzzle, the glyphs, your aha moments or the solutions that made you groan.
The fall of Constantinople in 1453 consolidated the Ottomans as one of the world's greatest powers, controlling the trade routes between East and West.
During the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire not only knew of the existence of the Americas, but even depicted it on some of its maps as a future imperial province under the name Vilayet Antilia (Province of the Antilles).
With the Spanish discovery of the Americas, the New World became of enormous interest to Istanbul. Under the ideology of the "Universal Empire" and the global caliphate, the scholars and bureaucrats of the Sultan's court argued theoretically that these new lands should be under Ottoman sovereignty. Their goal was to challenge the Spanish monopoly over the Americas.
They sought an alternative route to expand into the Atlantic Ocean, finding their ideal base in North Africa at the beginning of the 16th century. To achieve this, the Ottomans needed access to the Atlantic Ocean. After conquering Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, they attempted to reach the Strait of Cádiz, which was tightly controlled by the Spanish, thus preventing them from having direct access to the Atlantic.
Faced with this obstacle, the Ottoman Empire sought to weaken Spain through a grand alliance with France, which for decades collaborated with the Ottomans against the Spanish Monarchy. Simultaneously, strategic agreements also existed with England to curb Spanish power in Europe and at sea.
However, the Ottoman project ultimately failed. The victory of the Holy League at Lepanto, led by the Spanish Monarchy, halted Ottoman naval expansion in the Mediterranean, and the failure of the second siege of Vienna, in which Spanish troops relieved the city, marked the beginning of the definitive decline of the Ottoman Empire's expansionist aspirations in Europe.
The immense geographical distance, logistical limitations, and Spain's iron grip meant that this dream of Ottoman America never progressed beyond the realm of plans and cartographic projections.
Had the Ottomans reached the Atlantic and crossed into the Americas, the political, cultural, and religious landscape of the continent would have been completely transformed.
Even before the Spanish conquest, the Tlaxcalans considered themselves superior to the surrounding peoples. In the myth of their migration from Chicomóztoc, they are referred to as teochichimecas, meaning 'true Chichimecs' or 'greater Chichimecs,' to distinguish themselves from other Chichimec tribes and place themselves a step above them.
During their period of enmity with Tenochtitlán, it was unthinkable for a Tlaxcalan, commoner or noble, to marry or form matrimonial alliances with the Mexica.
Another ethnic group living in pre-Hispanic Tlaxcalan territory was the Otomi. They, too, were considered 'inferior.' However, after the war against Huejotzingo in 1502, the Otomi captains, among whom Tlahuicole was surely included, proved to be formidable warriors and captains, and the Tlaxcalan lords rewarded them by marrying the captains to their own daughters and knighting many of them so that they would be considered and esteemed in the Republic as qualified individuals—that is, they accepted them as "Tlaxcalans." [0]
Mixed marriages, as we see, were only permitted if it was considered that this would bring benefits either to the family or to the province in general, or as a reward to people considered "inferior" for their services to the "Republic," but it was not common practice among the Tlaxcalans.
Another accepted form of mixed marriage, and perhaps the best known, was the offering of noblewomen to Hernán Cortés as a sign of acceptance of the Spanish-Tlaxcalan alliance.
Except for these exceptional cases, mestizos were considered 'bad blood,' 'mixed-race,' incapable of governing.
Once the Spanish-Tlaxcalan alliance was established, the latter used it to perpetuate their 'supremacy' over the other indigenous peoples, securing for themselves a place of prestige and privileges before the Spanish Crown.
Their capital city, Tlaxcala, was honored with a coat of arms that included a reference to the very land of their Tlatoani: Castile. It also received the title of «Muy Noble, Muy Leal e Insigne». Furthermore, in 1585, King Philip issued a law stating that 'that city is the most important in New Spain.'
At least 11 Tlaxcalan nobles and captains received their own coats of arms, which granted them status and prestige in their society. And King Charles I called them 'cousins,' that is, he recognized their noble status within the context of the Catholic Monarchy. Thus, the Tlaxcalan supremacy that had existed before the conquest was perpetuated, now backed by the Catholic King of Spain and the Indies.
These ideas traveled with the Tlaxcalans who went to colonize northern New Spain, and who had also negotiated perpetual preferential treatment wherever they went.
As late as 1778, Friar Agustín de Morfi said of them that he praised "their great care not to mix with the castes people with whom Saltillo is infested, whose inhabitants, in general, I don't know if they can boast of such purity of blood as the Tlaxcalan Indians."
Segregation was a recurring feature in the Kingdom of New Spain, both in the mother country of Tlaxcala, which always invoked the privilege granted by Charles I prohibiting Spanish settlements within its territory, and in the colonies, whose settlements were clearly defined and separated from the Spanish population and other Indian groups:
"And although the Chichimecs have settled alongside the Tlaxcalan Indians, they do not intermarry or cohabit with them, because neither group desires to." [1]
"It is noteworthy that these two nations, Chichimec and Tlaxcalan, although they inhabit the same places, do not intermarry, nor do they live in the same houses, each maintaining its own customs in the construction of its houses, food, etc." [2]
As already mentioned, interracial marriages were only permitted if they benefited the community or the individual in some way. Well, there were marriage alliances that allowed the Tlaxcalans to access lands belonging to local tribes (just as the Spanish did in Tlaxcala itself). For their part, the Spanish sought marriages with Tlaxcalan women to climb the social ladder; remember that all Tlaxcalans in the north were nobles and could use the title 'don' and other privileges such as exemption from tribute.
Thus, there were Indians of non-Tlaxcalan origin, Spaniards, or mestizos who, legally and before the authorities, were considered "Tlaxcalans" and therefore could access the privileges inherent to that status:
"By being together and gathered, we have become so intertwined that, over time, the name of those Huachichiles was lost, as we all became Tlaxcalans." [3]
The real impossibility of preventing mixed marriages, whether beneficial or not, for extended periods meant that, over the centuries, racial pride, based on the purity of Tlaxcalan blood, became a sense of belonging to a social, political, and even "national" group: to be Tlaxcalan.
Martínez Baracs summarizes it thus:
"Membership in the corporation was not biological but social, according to rules of coexistence of ancient tradition and defended by consensus. Similarly, in the north, anyone belonging to the corporation of Tlaxcalan heritage was considered 'Tlaxcalan.'" [4]
Being Tlaxcalan conferred significant tax advantages, so much so that even the Spaniards aspired to become Tlaxcalans. Let's look at a case from the town of Parras:
"The fact is that they have neither kept themselves pure nor excluded anyone from the right of incorporation into their town. The castes obtain it with the greatest ease, and even the Spaniards are not ashamed to form a republic with them and live subordinate to their judges. Hence, they do not pay tribute due to the privilege of being Tlaxcalans, and there is not a single individual in Parras who is one."
It was a genuine aspiration among the rest of Indians to become Tlaxcalan; perhaps this is the origin of the myths about a supposed 'Tlaxcalan prince' who would be crowned King in New Spain.
When New Spain became independent, taking the name of its capital, Mexico, the privileges and noble titles were eliminated, directly affecting the Tlaxcalan elite throughout New Spain. Thus, in the colonies, suddenly there were no longer any incentives to maintain a specific lineage or subnational affiliation beyond the national one—that is, Mexican. Even so, vestiges of the Tlaxcalan cultural heritage remain in northern Mexico and the southern United States, enough to fill many more articles.
In the province of Tlaxcala, the sense of Tlaxcalan national pride did endure, although no longer based on privileges or noble titles, but rather on an exaltation of Tlaxcala's 'historical greatness' and its past of glories and feats. One need only look at the patriotic defenses made by Tlaxcalans such as Miguel Guridi y Alcocer or José Mariano Sánchez to realize this.
Even today, in Tlaxcala, a feeling of 'superiority' or 'distinction' persists in relation to the other states that make up the United Mexican States, as it defines itself as the 'Cradle of Mestizaje,' the 'Cradle of the Nation,' the 'Origin of Mexico' [5], and similar titles. They also symbolically reclaimed the designations of origin for things traditionally considered 'Mexican,' such as sarapes, rebozos, pulque, the Nahuatl language, traditional sweets, tacos de canasta, and much more.
Conclusions
The idea that Tlaxcala and the Tlaxcalans 'are special' dates back to the very origins of the nation, when they were called 'Teochichimecas,' their marriage alliances were exceptional, not the general rule, and great importance was placed on lineage and racial purity.
During the Viceroyalty, these ideas and customs evolved both in the province and in the colonies. Being Tlaxcalan was a social position that was not necessarily based on biological inheritance but on belonging by affiliation. Belonging to this social group provided status, prestige, and notable practical benefits such as exemption from paying tribute.
With independence, much of this legacy and sense of belonging and affiliation with being Tlaxcalan was lost in the colonies, but in the mother state of Tlaxcala, it remained intact and endures to this day through new historical, cultural, and social reclaimings.
Source(s):
[0] Historia de Tlaxcala, Diego Muñoz Camargo.
[1] TORQUEMADA, 1977-1983, vol. 2, book v, chap. xxxv, p. 445.
[2] ALESSIO ROBLES, 1934, pp. 127-128.
[3] ZAVALA, 1989, p. 34, AMS, box 3, exp. 7.
[4] Martínez Baracs, Andrea. Colonizadores Tlaxcaltecas.
[5] Current motto of the government of the City of Tlaxcala.
On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress did far more than approve a document. It proclaimed the birth of a new nation and forever altered the course of world history. Although Congress had already voted for independence two days earlier, on July 2, it was on this day that delegates adopted the final wording of the Declaration of Independence, transforming a political decision into a timeless statement of human liberty.
For more than a year, Americans had fought British soldiers on battlefields from Lexington and Concord to Bunker Hill, Quebec, Charleston, and New York. Blood had already been spilled, cities had burned, and thousands had sacrificed their lives before independence was formally declared.
Until this moment, however, many colonists still viewed themselves as Englishmen defending their constitutional rights. The Declaration announced that the struggle was no longer about restoring old liberties within the British Empire, it was about creating an entirely new nation.
Meeting in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress once again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, allowing every delegate to participate in the final revisions before the document returned to formal session for adoption. Benjamin Harrison of Virginia reported that the committee had completed its work, and Congress unanimously approved the revised Declaration.
The principal author, Thomas Jefferson, had produced an extraordinary draft, drawing upon Enlightenment philosophy, the writings of John Locke, colonial grievances, and Virginia’s own Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason only weeks earlier. Jefferson later wrote that he sought not originality, but rather “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject.”
During two days of debate, delegates carefully edited Jefferson’s language. Nearly one-quarter of his original draft was removed or revised. The most significant deletion involved Jefferson’s lengthy condemnation of the transatlantic slave trade.
In one of the most controversial passages ever written by a Founder, Jefferson accused King George III of committing a “cruel war against human nature itself” by supporting the capture and transportation of Africans into slavery. He denounced Britain for maintaining “a market where MEN should be bought & sold” and for encouraging enslaved people to seek their freedom by rising against their colonial masters.
Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia objected strongly to the passage, while some northern merchants who had profited from the slave trade also resisted its inclusion. To preserve colonial unity at this critical moment, Congress reluctantly removed the entire section.
The deletion revealed one of the central contradictions that would haunt the United States for generations. The Declaration would proclaim universal human equality while leaving slavery untouched. It established ideals that would later inspire abolitionists, civil rights leaders, suffragists, and reformers, even as many of its authors failed to fully apply those principles in their own time.
Despite the revisions, the Declaration retained the words that would become among the most famous ever written:
“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.”
With these words, Congress declared that governments derived “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that when governments became destructive of those rights, “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”
This was a revolutionary idea unlike anything previously asserted by a national government. Kings ruled by hereditary right. Parliament claimed authority through ancient tradition. The Declaration instead argued that legitimate government existed only because free people allowed it to exist.
Congress further declared that the 13 colonies were no longer colonies at all.
They were now:
“Free and Independent States.”
As independent nations, they possessed “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.”
These words announced to Britain, France, Spain, the Dutch Republic, and every other government in Europe that America intended to join the community of sovereign nations.
Immediately after adoption, Congress ordered the Declaration authenticated and printed for public distribution. Philadelphia printer John Dunlap worked through the night producing what became known as the Dunlap Broadsides, large single-sheet printings designed to be quickly carried throughout the continent.
Only about 26 of these original broadsides survive today.
Congress ordered copies sent to every colonial assembly, convention, council of safety, committee of correspondence, and Continental Army commander so the Declaration could be publicly read in every state and before every regiment.
The broadside bore only two printed names, President John Hancock and Secretary Charles Thomson. Contrary to popular belief, most delegates did not sign the engrossed parchment copy until August 2, with several signing even later.
While Congress declared independence in Philadelphia, General William Howe continued assembling what would become the largest British expeditionary force ever sent across the Atlantic.
Thousands of British troops occupied Staten Island, transforming it into a vast military base from which to launch the coming invasion of New York.
Captain William Bamford recorded:
“The Troops march’d to their several cantonments round the Island.”
Corporal Thomas Sullivan likewise observed that Howe’s growing army had landed and was “distributed about” Staten Island.
Washington watched these developments with growing concern.
His adjutant general, Joseph Reed, reported that Loyalist leader Cortlandt Skinner and armed supporters had crossed onto Staten Island, gathering livestock and provisions while encouraging Loyalist sympathizers.
Washington warned Congress that approximately 4,000 British soldiers had marched around the island attempting to rally inhabitants loyal to the Crown. He feared they would soon cross into New Jersey, attracting additional Loyalists through persuasion or intimidation before launching their attack against Manhattan.
Patriot communities across New Jersey shared those fears.
The Newark Committee of Correspondence appealed directly to Washington for protection, explaining that much of the local militia was already serving with the Continental Army around New York.
Committee chairman Lewis Ogden wrote that local families remained:
“unprotected either from the Enemy without or the Tories & Negroes in the midst of us.”
The statement reflected both the intense fear of Loyalist uprisings and the racial anxieties of many white Patriots following Lord Dunmore’s 1775 proclamation offering freedom to enslaved people who escaped and joined British forces. The committee cited no specific plot or act by Black residents, but its language reveals how deeply fear and suspicion had spread throughout communities threatened by invasion.
Washington responded by strengthening defenses on both sides of the Hudson River.
He dispatched military engineer Antoine Félix Wiebert to oversee fortifications near King’s Bridge, the only land connection between Manhattan and the mainland. He renewed urgent requests for reinforcements from the Flying Camp, a planned mobile reserve of 10,000 militia intended to reinforce threatened positions around New York and New Jersey.
During the previous night, American artillery fired two nine-pounder cannon at British ships near the Narrows while covering the arrival of New Jersey militia. Every available soldier and cannon was being positioned for what everyone expected would be the largest battle of the war.
Elsewhere, the political revolution became a public celebration.
At New Castle, Delaware, Colonel John Haslet’s Delaware Regiment marched to the courthouse carrying the visible symbols of royal authority.
Second Lieutenant Enoch Anderson remembered the soldiers piling together the king’s insignia before setting them ablaze.
He proudly described burning:
“all the insignia of monarchy”
and
“all the baubles of Royalty.”
Only weeks earlier, on June 15, Delaware’s Assembly had formally ended governmental authority in the name of King George III. The destruction of the royal emblems transformed that legal decision into a powerful public ceremony.
Anderson joyfully remembered the occasion as:
“our first jubilee”
and simply,
“a merry day.”
Yet while celebration echoed through Philadelphia and Delaware, the northern frontier told a very different story.
Following the disastrous collapse of the American invasion of Canada, exhausted Continental soldiers streamed south toward Crown Point along Lake Champlain.
Disease had devastated the army. Smallpox, dysentery, exposure, and hunger had weakened thousands more effectively than British musket fire.
Army physician Dr. Lewis Beebe described an army approaching collapse.
Instead of constructing fortifications against the expected British advance, soldiers wandered aimlessly.
General officers rode through camp while field officers spent much of their time conducting courts-martial. Company officers often gathered in taverns.
The enlisted men, Beebe observed with frustration, were:
“The Soldiers either sleeping, swiming, fishing, or Cursing and Swearing most generally the Latter.”
His account revealed an exhausted army struggling under the weight of defeat, disease, poor discipline, and declining morale. The retreat from Canada marked one of the Revolution’s greatest early failures and demonstrated the immense challenges facing the young republic even as it celebrated its birth.
July 4, 1776, therefore, was both a day of extraordinary hope and sobering reality.
In Philadelphia, representatives of 13 colonies announced that a new nation had entered the world, founded not upon bloodlines or monarchy but upon universal principles of natural rights and self-government. They declared that liberty belonged not by permission of a king but by the inherent rights of humanity.
Yet outside Independence Hall, the war continued. British armies gathered for their greatest offensive. American soldiers retreated from Canada. Loyalists and Patriots prepared to fight neighbors as well as imperial troops. The ideals proclaimed that day would require seven more years of war to secure and generations of Americans to more fully realize.
The Declaration of Independence became the Revolution’s defining statement because it explained not merely why Americans were separating from Britain, but what kind of nation they hoped to become. Its words inspired revolutions across the globe, influenced constitutions on every continent, and remain one of history’s greatest affirmations that governments exist to protect the rights of the people rather than rule over them.
John Adams predicted that the Revolution would be remembered with “Pomp and Parade… Bonfires and Illuminations.” Although he mistakenly believed July 2 would become America’s great anniversary, history instead chose July 4, the day the principles of the Revolution were committed to parchment and presented to the world.
Today, 250 years later, the Declaration remains America’s founding creed, reminding each generation that liberty is never merely inherited. It must be understood, defended, and continually renewed. #TodayInAmericanHistory #ThisDayInHistory #RoadToRevolution #america250 #Semiquincentennial #250YearsOfAmerica #SpiritOf1776 #HistoricAmerica #LivingHistory
This July 4, we celebrate 250 years of the United States of America and the timeless ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
World Cup Sandcastle Number 7 created by @ on Mother’s Beach in Marina del Rey is dedicated to those founding principles and to the nation that has provided generations with opportunity, freedom, and hope.
As the 2026 FIFA World Cup brings people together from every corner of the globe, it has been incredible to watch fans from so many different countries unite through the love of the game. Southern California has become the world’s stage, and we are proud to be part of this historic moment.
Take a moment today to reflect, appreciate the freedoms we enjoy, and celebrate the country we call home.
The eighth and final World Cup Sandcastle will be unveiled on July 10 for the quarterfinal match at SoFi Stadium. We can’t wait to share the final chapter of this series with you.
Catalina Crew | Live to Tell the Tale
During the Senate debates over what would become the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the proposed Citizenship Clause because he believed it would grant citizenship to the American-born children of Chinese immigrants and other foreigners. He viewed this as an undesirable consequence of the amendment.
The amendment's supporters did not respond by saying that the clause was intended only for formerly enslaved people or their descendants. Instead, they continued to defend the broad language of the amendment, which reads:
*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."*
Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, specifically discussed certain exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy occupiers, and certain Native Americans who were then considered members of separate sovereign nations. Immigrants, however, were not listed among those exceptions.
This raises an interesting historical question: Does the fact that Cowan objected to birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants—and that no one corrected him by saying the amendment was limited to former slaves—tell us something about how the framers understood the scope of the Citizenship Clause?
I'm interested in the historical evidence and how historians and legal scholars interpret this particular exchange in the congressional debates, rather than the modern political arguments surrounding birthright citizenship.
When Archduke Maximilian of Habsburg was invited to Mexico to become its sovereign, he was primarily supported by sectors of the conservative elite, who desired a monarchical government to counter the liberals. Maximilian was seen as someone who, being European and coming from an imperial family, could attract international support and create an order that conservatives considered “more civilized.”
However, things did not go as planned. As Maximilian ruled, he adopted a series of policies that were not well received by these groups within the Mexican conservative elite. First, his focus on social and economic issues, such as his willingness to implement reforms favoring the rights of Indians, education, and property ownership, generated tensions with the conservatives, who favored a more hierarchical and unequal social structure. Maximilian showed a greater inclination to govern for all the Mexican people, not just for the interests of the Mexican elite, which led many of his early supporters to feel betrayed.
It is known that many of the conservatives who supported the imperial project had a very mistaken idea regarding what the establishment of the empire in Mexico would entail, as they thought that the monarch would protect his interests and completely oppose the policies of Benito Juárez, which did not happen with Maximilian.
"You and your wife, Doña Carlota, have come to these distant and unknown lands obeying only the spontaneous call of the Nation, which places in you the happiness of its future. I truly admire your generosity, but on the other hand, I was greatly surprised to find the phrase 'spontaneous call' in your letter, for I had already seen that when the traitors of my country presented themselves in Miramar to offer you the Crown of Mexico with the support of nine or ten towns of the Nation, you saw in all this a ridiculous farce unworthy of being considered by an honest and honorable man." (Benito Juárez; New York Herald, 1864)
Thus, the hatred of the conservative elite toward Maximilian was a consequence of their frustration with the lack of expected results and the conflict between his policies and the interests of this elite. The frustration of the Mexican elite reached such a level that after the fall of the empire and the death of the Emperor of Mexico, they began to defame, attack and slander the archduke whom they themselves had brought, forging a Black Legend around his figure.
Original: «Y ansi los yndios que alli están escondidos fueron parte de las Diez Tribus de los Israelitas».
— Aharon Levi, 1652.
Translation: "And so the Indians who are hidden there were part of the Ten Tribes of the Israelites."
— Aharon Levi, 1652.
———————————————————————
Original: «vieron los hombres cuatrocientos o trescientos años. Mandó Dios salir de esta tierra derramar y multiplicar por todo el mundo de los hijos de Noé, de estos dichos hijos de Noé uno de ellos trajo Dios a Las Indias, otros dicen que salió del mismo Adán, multiplicaron los dichos indios que todo lo sabe Dios y como poderoso lo puede tener aparte esta gente de Indias en tiempos del diluvio como dicho es engendró Noé a Arphaxad, Arphaxad engendró a Salí, Salí engendró a Heber, Heber engendró a Phalig, Phalig engendró a Reu, Reu engendró a Sarug, Sarug engendró a Nachor, Nachor engendró a Thaze, Thaze engendró a Abrahán».
— Guamán Poma de Ayala, siglo XVII.
Translation: “Men saw four hundred or three hundred years. God commanded the sons of Noah to leave this earth, spread throughout the world, and multiply. Of these sons of Noah, God brought one to the Indies; others say he came from Adam himself. These Indians multiplied, for God knows all things, and as He is powerful, He can keep these people of the Indies separate. In the time of the flood, as has been said, Noah fathered Arphaxad, Arphaxad fathered Sali, Sali fathered Eber, Eber fathered Phalig, Phalig fathered Reu, Reu fathered Sarug, Sarug fathered Nachor, Nachor fathered Thaze, Thaze fathered Abraham.”
— Guamán Poma de Ayala, 17th century.
———————————————————————
Original version: «se infiere, son otra gente, y probablemente israelitas. Pues vemos que nunca pudieron ser conquistados, ni serán perfectamente descubiertos hasta el fin de los días, por permisión divina… que Dios tiene encubiertos en aquella partes, hasta el tiempo de la redención futura […] Y provincias que mas brevemente han de sentir sus efectos, serán las Yndias de Castilla, las cuales darán una gran caída, y será de manera, que el tiempo lo dirá, y el Rey de España lo sentirá, mas de lo que ahora imagina […] los grandes edificios que los españoles hallaron en alguno lugares, se puede conjeturar, ser obra de los israelitas, antes que se ocultasen en las montañas. El Ynga Garcilazo de la Vega, en la primera parte de sus comentarios del Perú, cuenta como en Tiahuanacu, provincia del Collao, entre algunos edificios, se hallo uno digno de inmortal memoria, pegado a la laguna, llamado Chuquiuitu… dedicado según los yndios al hacedor del universo… se puede conjeturar ser alguna Sinagoga hecha por israelitas. […] Pues asi como las Tribus fueron cautivos en diferentes tiempos, asi es de creer, que no están todos juntos en una misma parte, sino que se dividieron en muchas. Por lo cual asi como en el estrecho de Anian decimos, que se pasaron a las Yndias Occidentales… el argumento que tenemos para comprobar esto, consiste en la autoridad de los Jesuitas».
— Manasseh ben Israel, 1650.
Translation: “It can be inferred that they are another people, and probably Israelites. For we see that they could never be conquered, nor will they be fully discovered until the end of days, by divine permission… that God has hidden them in those parts, until the time of future redemption […] And the provinces that will most quickly feel its effects will be the Indies of Castile, which will suffer a great fall, and it will be in such a way that time will tell, and the King of Spain will feel it more than he now imagines […] the great buildings that the Spaniards found in some places, it can be conjectured, are the work of the Israelites, before they hid in the mountains. Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, in the first part of his commentaries on Peru, recounts how in Tiahuanaco, in the province of Collao, among some buildings, one worthy of immortal memory was found, next to the lagoon, called Chuquiuitu… dedicated, according to the Indians, to the creator of the universe… it can be conjectured to be some synagogue built by Israelites. […] For just as the tribes were taken captive at different times, so it is to be believed that they are not all together in one place, but rather divided into many. Therefore, just as we say that they crossed over to the West Indies at the Strait of Anian… the argument we have to prove this consists of the authority of the Jesuits.”
— Manasseh ben Israel, 1650.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, a curious belief about the identity of the Indigenous peoples in the Americas arose in some intellectual circles of the Spanish, Portuguese, German, and Anglo worlds. This idea held that the Indians could be descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel, a theory that resonated especially in the context of the discovery of the New World and its religious and cultural implications.
In Peru, this current of thought resonated with certain sectors of the Indian elite, where it blended with Catholic traditions and biblical narratives transmitted through evangelization. Influenced by the Jewish and Christian notion of a "chosen people," some Indian leaders began to symbolically identify with Israel, constructing a narrative in which Peru was conceived as a "New Israel." This imaginary was nourished by the religious syncretism of Judaism, Catholicism, and the messianic and millenarian ideals that persisted from movements like Taqui Ongoy and the influence of Jesuit thought. All this religious discourse fueled the belief that the Indians of Peru were "God's chosen people."
Original: «los impulsos de Dios nos alientan, eligiendo un Capitán General como lo hicieron los israelitas a Moisés para salir del cautiverio del Faraón... sacudiendo este pesado yugo».
— Fray Calixto Túpac Inca, 1749.
Translation: "God's impulses encourage us, choosing a Captain General as the Israelites chose Moses to escape Pharaoh's captivity... shaking off this heavy yoke."
— Friar Calixto Túpac Inca, 1749.
From this amalgamation of religious, cultural, and ideological influences arose the expectation that Peru would be the stage for a divine redemption. Some imagined the arrival of a leader who would guide the Indians in a rebellion against Spanish rule, while others awaited the appearance of a Messiah similar to Christ, who would establish the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Israel" in Peru. This kingdom, according to these beliefs of the viceregal era, would signify the expulsion of the Spanish functionaries, labeled as "tyrants," and the restoration of a divine order, marking a symbolic return to an era of justice and spiritual redemption.
On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Lee Resolution, declaring the colonies "free and independent States". That was the actual vote for independence!
John Adams wrote to Abigail predicting July 2 would be "solemnized with pomp and parade .... from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
He nailed the spirit and missed the date by two days... the public came to associate independence with the Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, rather than with the vote that enacted independence.
Bonus detail I love: the Syng inkstand that the signers dipped their pens into to sign the Declaration sat on the same table in the same room 11 years later, when the Constitution was signed.
Happy Independence Vote Day!! 😄