Category: History Page 7 of 11

Grumpy opinions about American history

The Constitutional Foundations

On August 27, 2025

Who Controls Elections?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the president should have broad authority to change how elections are conducted—particularly when it comes to abolishing mail-in voting and voting machines. As recently as August 2025, Trump pledged to issue an executive order banning mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, insisting that states must comply with his directive because, in his words, “States act merely as ‘agents’ for the Federal Government when it comes to counting and tabulating votes.… They are required to follow what the Federal Government, represented by the President of the United States, instructs them to do, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY”.

But this isn’t the first time he has suggested that he could control the election process. In March 2025, Trump issued a major executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” that aims to expand presidential control over the election process. The order attempts to direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent, bipartisan agency — to mandate that voters show a passport or other similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form. The executive order has been the subject of extensive litigation, and several federal judges have issued injunctions against various portions of it.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic during his first term, President Trump publicly suggested delaying the election. Constitutional scholars and members of Congress quickly pointed out he lacked such authority—the date of federal elections is set by statute, and only Congress could change it.

The U.S. Constitution provides a clear framework for who holds the authority to control elections, and it is not the president.

Article I, Section 4: Congressional and State Authority

The main constitutional authority over U.S. elections is found in Article I, Section 4, commonly called the “Elections Clause.” It states:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”

This language charges state legislatures with defining the details of congressional elections, including logistics and procedures. Importantly, Congress retains the power to override state laws and impose federal rules—such as standardized Election Days or regulations for voter registration and districting.

What does this mean for the president? The Constitution is clear: the president has no direct authority to determine the conduct of congressional elections or to unilaterally change the way federal elections are held. Presidential influence over elections is limited to signing or vetoing congressional legislation, not acting alone.

Article II and the 12th Amendment: Presidential Elections

Presidential elections are regulated by Article II, which created the Electoral College, and by the 12th Amendment .

Article II, Section 1 provides:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”

States arrange how their presidential electors are selected, subject to changes imposed by congressional law. The federal government, through Congress (not the president!), determines the timing of choosing electors and casting electoral votes. The 12th Amendment sets procedures for how electors meet and vote for both president and vice president.

Again, neither Article II nor the 12th Amendment gives the president authority to independently set election rules. At most, the president can recommend reforms, sign laws crafted by Congress, and advocate for certain policies.

Historical Examples of Limits on Presidential Power Over Elections

Even during national crises, presidents have not been able to unilaterally change election rules:

1864 Election (Lincoln): Despite the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln did not postpone or suspend the presidential election. Elections were carried out in the states, including special arrangements for soldiers to vote.
1944 Election (Roosevelt): In the midst of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt stood for re-election. Again, no effort was made by the president to change election laws.

Presidential Powers: What Can the Executive Branch Do?

The president’s responsibilities in elections are more limited than you might expect and are essentially ministerial and ceremonial, not regulatory.

The executive power in Article II invests the president with broad national leadership, command of the military, and responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This can include enforcing voting rights laws and overseeing federal agencies that support election integrity. However, the Constitution and decades of legal precedent restrict the president from directly controlling election rules.

The president cannot by executive order change state rules for voting methods (e.g., mail-in voting, voting machines).
The president cannot unilaterally suspend or postpone federal elections.
The president cannot direct states to alter their voter registration, polling locations, or other administrative details.
The president has no role in certifying state results. That function belongs to state officials, with Congress responsible for counting electoral votes.
The president can direct federal agencies like the Department of Justice to enforce federal election laws, protect voting rights, and intervene in cases of fraud or intimidation. The president does not have the authority to direct federal agencies to act in a manner contrary to the law.

When presidents have sought to influence election administration more directly, courts and Congress have reaffirmed the constitutional boundaries. For example, efforts to change the date of an election or prohibit certain voting methods without congressional action have consistently failed in the courts.

Congressional Power: The Real Check on Election Rules

While state legislatures remain the primary manager of elections, Congress retains the final word. The Supreme Court has confirmed that congressional law “preempts” conflicting state rules in matters of federal elections. When Congress acts—through laws like the Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act—states must comply, and the president’s role is simply to sign or veto those laws.

Congress has used its power over the years to:

Set a uniform national Election Day.
Establish protections for disabled voters and overseas citizens.
Mandate requirements around voter registration and accessibility.
Regulate campaign finance and transparency.

Checks, Balances, and Modern Tensions

Recent political debates have seen calls for presidents to take stronger action on election oversight, especially regarding the use of mail-in ballots or voting machines. However, these calls run up against clear constitutional limits: the president cannot rewrite the rules of elections without Congress or state legislatures.

Any presidential attempt to do so by executive order would face swift legal challenges and almost certainly be invalidated. The intent of the Framers was to divide election power between the states and Congress, with the president largely excluded from direct rule-making authority. This balance—central to federalism—protects elections from potential abuses of executive power and ensures that reforms require broad democratic consensus. While presidents can champion reforms and enforce federal laws supporting fair elections, they are constitutionally forbidden from unilaterally changing election rules.

Conclusion

The framework isn’t perfect—it can create confusion when state and federal authorities clash. But the basic principle remains: states run elections. Congress can regulate them within constitutional bounds, and presidents enforce the resulting laws.

For citizens, lawmakers, and presidents alike, respect for these boundaries secures the foundation of American democracy. The right to vote—and the integrity of how that vote is counted—is protected not by any single leader, but by enduring constitutional principles and the shared power of states and Congress.

Deborah Sampson: A Revolutionary Soldier

By John Turley

On August 11, 2025

In History

In the story of the American Revolution, the names most often remembered are those of the Founding Fathers and battlefield generals. Yet woven through the familiar narrative are lesser known but extraordinary individuals whose actions defied the norms of their time. One of the most remarkable among them was Deborah Sampson, a Massachusetts woman who disguised herself as a man and served for nearly two years in the Continental Army. Her life reflects not only courage and patriotism, but also the complexity of gender roles in Revolutionary America

A Difficult Early Life

Deborah Sampson was born in Plympton, Massachusetts, in 1760 as the eldest of seven children in a family with deep Pilgrim roots, tracing lineage to Myles Standish and Governor William Bradford. Despite this heritage, her family struggled financially, and she grew up with poverty and abandonment. Her father deserted the family when she was young, leaving her mother with limited resources to care for their children. It was initially thought that he had died at sea, but they later discovered he had actually moved to Maine where he married and raised a second family.

Deborah was still young when her mother died and she was sent to live with a widow, Mary Price Thatcher, then in her 80s. Deborah likely learned to read while living with her. After Widow Thatcher died, Deborah was bound out as an indentured servant to the Thomas family in Middleborough, Massachusetts, where she worked until she turned 18. This experience exposed her to hard physical labor and taught her skills typically associated with men’s work, including farming and carpentry. During this time, she educated herself and developed a keen intellect that would prove invaluable throughout her life.

When her term of indenture ended in 1782, Sampson found herself in a precarious position as a young, unmarried woman with few economic opportunities. She intermittently supported herself as a teacher in the summers and a weaver in the winters.

Enlisting in the Army

The Revolutionary War was still raging, and the Continental Army desperately needed recruits. Motivated by both patriotic fervor and economic necessity, Sampson made the audacious decision to enlist in the army disguised as a man. She initially enlisted in 1782 under the name Timothy Taylor and collected a cash enlistment bounty but she failed to report for duty with her company. She was later recognized as being Taylor and was required to repay what she had not already spent from her enlistment bounty. No further punishment was made by the civil authorities; however, the Baptist Church withdrew its fellowship until she apologized and asked for forgiveness.

She later made a second enlistment, adopting the name Robert Shurtleff (sometimes spelled Shurtlieff or Shirtliff). This time she followed through and reported for duty.

She bound her chest, cut her hair, and donned men’s clothing to complete her transformation. Sampson’s physical appearance aided her deception. She was tall for a woman of her era, standing nearly six feet, with a lean build and strong constitution developed through years of manual labor. Her lack of facial hair was not unusual among young male recruits, and she successfully passed the initial examination to join the 4th Massachusetts Regiment in May 1782.

The challenge of maintaining her disguise while living in close quarters with other soldiers required constant vigilance. Sampson developed strategies to protect her secret, including volunteering for guard duty to avoid sleeping arrangements that might expose her, and finding private moments to tend to personal needs. She also had to manage the physical demands of military life while dealing with the unique challenges of being a woman in a male-dominated environment.

Sampson’s military career nearly ended when she was wounded during a skirmish. She received a sword cut to her head and was shot in the thigh. Fearing that medical treatment would reveal her true identity, she initially treated her wounds herself, even digging a musket ball out of her own leg with a knife. Some of the shot remained too deep to remove, leaving her with a lifelong disability.

During her military service, Sampson demonstrated exceptional courage and skill as a soldier. She participated in several skirmishes and battles, including engagements near New York City and in Westchester County. Her fellow soldiers respected her for her dedication, marksmanship, and willingness to volunteer for dangerous scouting missions. She proved herself particularly adept at reconnaissance work, using her intelligence and observational skills to gather valuable information about enemy positions and movements.

Discovery and Discharge

During an epidemic in Philadelphia, she fell seriously ill with a fever and was taken to a hospital, where a physician discovered her secret while treating her. Fortunately, the doctor, Barnabas Binney, chose to protect Sampson rather than expose her. He treated her quietly and helped facilitate her honorable discharge from the army in October 1783. Her commanding officer, General John Paterson, reportedly handled the situation with discretion and respect, recognizing her valuable service to the cause of independence. Eventually she was discharged by General Henry Knox on October 25, 1783, and was given funds to return home and a Note of Advice, similar to modern discharge papers.

Life After the War

After the war, Sampson returned to Massachusetts, where she married Benjamin Gannet in 1785 and had three children. But like many veterans, she struggled financially and had difficulty obtaining the military pay and benefits she had earned. In 1792, with the help of prominent supporters—including Paul Revere—she successfully petitioned the Massachusetts legislature for back pay and a modest state pension and she later received a pension from the federal government.

Her story didn’t end with domestic life. She became one of the first women in America to go on a speaking tour, traveling throughout New England and New York to share her experiences. Wearing her military uniform, she delivered a combination of storytelling, dramatic performance of military drills, and patriotic appeal. These lectures, which began in 1802, were groundbreaking for their time, as respectable women rarely spoke publicly before mixed audiences.

A Lasting Legacy

Deborah Sampson’s legacy extends far beyond her military service. She challenged rigid gender roles and demonstrated that women could serve their country with the same valor and effectiveness as men. Her story inspired future generations of women who sought to break barriers and serve in traditionally male-dominated fields.

After she died in 1827, her story continued to gain recognition. In 1838, her husband was awarded a widow’s pension, possibly the first instance in U.S. history that the benefit was granted to a man based on his wife’s military service.

She left behind a legacy of courage, determination, and pioneering spirit that continues to resonate today. In 1983, she was declared the Official Heroine of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and in 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Deborah Sampson Act, expanding healthcare and benefits for female veterans. Statues and memorials, including her gravesite in Sharon, Massachusetts, commemorate her contributions. Her wartime exploits have been the subject of books, plays, and scholarly research and her story continues to inspire generations as a symbol of courage and the ongoing struggle for gender equality in military service.

While she was not the only woman to disguise herself and enlist—others like Margaret Corbin and Anna Maria Lane also took up arms—Sampson is among the best documented and celebrated.

Her life represents a crucial chapter in both military history and women’s history, illustrating the complex ways in which the American Revolution created opportunities for individuals to transcend social conventions in service of the greater cause of independence. Deborah’s journey from indentured servant to Continental Army soldier and national lecturer is a testament to her extraordinary courage and determination. By stepping into a role forbidden to women and excelling under the harshest conditions, she challenged the boundaries of her time and set a precedent for future generations.

Though it is possible that her wartime activities may have been exaggerated—a common practice in biographies of the time—her life remains a powerful reminder of the contributions women have made, often unrecognized, in the shaping of American history.

The illustration at the beginning of this post is from The Female Review: Life of Deborah Sampson, the Female Soldier in the War of Revolution (1916), a reprint of the 1797 biography by Herman Mann.

The Quasi-War

By John Turley

On August 7, 2025

In History

America’s Undeclared Naval Conflict with France

Following the American Revolution, the newly independent United States found itself caught between the competing imperial ambitions of Britain and France. What began as tensions over trade and neutrality escalated into an undeclared naval war and became the country’s first international crisis. The Quasi-War, as historians have named this conflict, was a pivotal moment in early American history when the republic’s survival hung in the balance.

The Quasi-War was a limited, undeclared naval conflict fought primarily in the Caribbean and along the American coast. The conflict was “quasi” because it lacked a formal declaration of war and was limited in scope, focusing mainly on naval encounters rather than land-based military campaigns.

Origins of the Conflict

The roots of the Quasi-War began with the disagreements, conflicts, and confusion of international relations that followed the French Revolution. The French declaration of war on Britain in 1793 put the United States in a difficult position. The 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France technically obligated the United States to support France militarily, but President George Washington, recognizing that America was too weak to engage in another major conflict, issued a Proclamation of Neutrality.

This decision to remain neutral infuriated the French government, which viewed it as a betrayal of their wartime alliance.

Tensions increased when the United States suspended loan repayments to France in 1793 primarily due to the dramatic political upheaval of the French Revolution and uncertainty about the legitimacy of the French government.

When the French Revolution began, the U.S. had outstanding debts to France from loans provided during the American Revolution. By 1793, the situation in France had become extremely volatile — King Louis XVI was executed in January, and various revolutionary factions were competing for power.

The Washington administration faced a dilemma: should they continue making payments to the new revolutionary government, or would doing so constitute recognition of a regime that might not be stable or even legitimate? There were also concerns about whether honoring debts to the revolutionary government might drag the U.S. into France’s expanding wars with European monarchies.

The situation deteriorated even further when the United States signed Jay’s Treaty with Britain in 1794. This commercial agreement resolved several outstanding issues between America and Britain, including the evacuation of British forts in the Northwest Territory and the establishment of limited trade relationships. To the French, Jay’s Treaty represented a clear alignment with their enemy.

The French responded in 1795, by authorizing privateers and naval vessels to attack and capture American merchant ships, particularly those trading with British ports or carrying British goods. By 1797, the French had captured over 300 American vessels, causing significant economic damage to American merchants and threatening the nation’s maritime commerce.

The diplomatic crisis deepened with the infamous XYZ Affair of 1797. When President John Adams sent envoys to Paris to negotiate a resolution to the mounting tensions, French Foreign Minister Talleyrand’s agents demanded substantial bribes, described as loans, before any negotiations could begin. The American diplomats refused these demands and returned home empty-handed. When news of the attempted extortion became public, it sparked outrage across America and the rallying cry “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!” In his report to Congress, President Adams referred to the three French officials as X, Y, and Z to protect their actual identity, thus giving the XYZ Affair its name.

The Undeclared War Begins

The failure of diplomatic negotiations and continued French attacks on American shipping pushed the Adams administration toward military action. Adams chose not to declare war, which would have required congressional approval and would have risked drawing in other European powers. Instead, he chose a more limited response, authorizing the United States Navy to capture French vessels found in American waters and to protect American merchant ships on the high seas.

The Adams administration took several significant steps to prepare for this maritime conflict. Congress authorized the creation of a separate Navy Department, expanded the existing naval forces, and approved the construction of new warships. The Marine Corps, which was disbanded in 1783, was also formally reestablished during this period. Additionally, Congress suspended all commercial activities with France and authorized American naval vessels to capture French ships engaged in hostile acts against American commerce.

Naval Encounters and Key Battles

The Quasi-War witnessed numerous naval engagements, ranging from single-ship duels to larger squadron actions. American naval commanders like Thomas Truxtun emerged as heroes during this conflict. Truxtun’s frigate USS Constellation achieved two notable victories, first capturing the French frigate L’Insurgente in February 1799, and later defeating La Vengeance in a fierce night battle in February 1800.

The conflict extended throughout the Caribbean, where American naval squadrons protected merchant convoys and hunted French privateers. The USS Enterprise, USS Experiment, and other smaller American vessels proved particularly effective in these operations, capturing numerous French privateers and recapturing American merchant vessels. The U. S. Navy captured or destroyed over 80 French vessels while having only a single ship captured in combat and that ship was later recaptured.

One of the most significant aspects of the naval war was its impact on American naval development. The conflict provided valuable combat experience for American officers and sailors, many of whom would later serve with distinction in the War of 1812. The success of American naval forces during the Quasi-War also demonstrated the importance of maintaining a strong navy for protecting American commercial interests.

While the war was almost exclusively naval, there were minor land actions such as that which occurred during September 1800, when U.S. Marines landed at Curaçao to drive French forces from two forts.

Fears of a possible French invasion led Congress to authorize a provisional army of 10,000 men. President John Adams appointed George Washington as Commander-in-Chief, with Alexander Hamilton as his second-in-command, though no land battles occurred.

Domestic Political Consequences

The Quasi-War worsened the growing divide between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. President Adams and the Federalist Party generally supported a strong response to French aggression, viewing it as necessary to protect American honor and commercial interests. The conflict provided Federalists with an opportunity to strengthen the federal government and build up American military forces.

The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798 during the height of anti-French sentiment, granted the government broad powers to deport foreign nationals and prosecute critics of the administration. These measures were widely seen as attacks on civil liberties and became a major political liability for the Federalists.

Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans opposed both the war and the domestic security measures, arguing that Adams was leading the country toward unnecessary conflict and tyranny. They maintained that the French grievances were legitimate and that diplomatic solutions should be pursued more vigorously.

Resolution and the Convention of 1800

By 1799, both sides had grown weary of the costly and disruptive conflict. Napoleon Bonaparte, who had come to power in France, was more interested in European affairs than in continuing a naval war with America. Similarly, President Adams recognized that prolonged conflict would be economically devastating and politically dangerous.

In February 1799, Adams surprised both his own party and the nation by announcing his intention to send new diplomatic envoys to France. This decision split the Federalist Party, with many hawks opposing any negotiations with France. Nevertheless, Adams persisted, believing that peace was in America’s best interest.

The resulting negotiations led to the Convention of 1800, also known as the Treaty of Mortefontaine, signed in September 1800. This agreement effectively ended the Quasi-War by establishing terms for peaceful coexistence based on the principle of “free trade, free goods” between the two nations. The treaty also provided for the mutual restoration of captured vessels, established compensation procedures for maritime losses, and most importantly, formally ended the 1778 Treaty of Alliance between France and the United States.

Long-term Impact and Legacy

The Quasi-War’s conclusion marked a significant turning point in American foreign policy. The conflict demonstrated that the United States could successfully defend its interests against a major European power without formal allies. It also established important precedents for presidential war powers and the use of limited military force without formal declarations of war. The experience gained during the Quasi-War would prove invaluable in subsequent conflicts, particularly the War of 1812.

The Quasi-War Was the beginning of a long-standing policy of neutrality in European conflicts, that persisted for much of the 19^th century and was even echoed in the first half of the 20^th century. It demonstrated to the world that the United States was a viable country that stood ready to defend its sovereignty.

The Quasi-War was America’s first undeclared war. Although Congress eventually granted limited military authority it was begun at the direction of President Adams. This has influenced American foreign policy and the use of military forces ever since. The Quasi-War was referenced in debates about American involvement in Vietnam and in the Gulf War. The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed an effort to limit the ability of the President to send American troops to combat in foreign countries, but its effectiveness and enforcement have been debated ever since it was passed.

Button Gwinnett

By John Turley

On July 23, 2025

In History, Uncategorized

An Almost Forgotten Signer of the Declaration of Independence

History is full of people both little known and unknown who were present at important events. They may have participated, or they may simply have been observers. Understanding them, their lives and their involvement can help us to understand the human aspect of historical events. This is what I love most about history, the stories of average people.

Not long ago, I was looking at a copy of a broadside of the Declaration of Independence when I noticed an intriguing signature — Button Gwinnett. He is one of the lesser-known signers of the Declaration of Independence, yet he played a significant role in the early political landscape of Georgia. His life was a blend of ambition and political maneuvering. His dramatic rise and fall remain intriguing to historians. Even though Gwinnett is little remembered today, his story offers a glimpse into the turbulent period of America’s founding.

Early Life and Migration to America

Button Gwinnett was born in 1735 in Down Hatherley, Gloucestershire, England. He was the son of an Anglican vicar and was named after his mother’s cousin Barbara Button who was also his godmother.

While details about his early education are scarce, it is believed that he received a basic education typical of the English gentry. Gwinnett’s early adulthood was marked by modest success as a merchant. In the 1760s, facing limited opportunities in England and the promise of economic prosperity in the American colonies, Gwinnett and his wife, Ann, emigrated to the New World.

Initially, Gwinnett settled in Charleston, South Carolina, where he engaged in trade. However, he struggled financially, and by 1765, he had relocated to Savannah, Georgia. This move marked not only the beginning of his political career, but also a period of fluctuating fortune. Gwinnett purchased St. Catherine’s Island off the coast of Georgia, hoping to become a successful plantation owner. Unfortunately, he overextended himself financially, and his attempts to establish a profitable business met with failure. Despite his financial setbacks, Gwinnett’s status as a landowner and merchant allowed him to enter the local political scene.

Rise in Politics and Revolutionary Activity

Gwinnett’s involvement in politics grew as tensions between the American colonies and Britain escalated. By the early 1770s, he had become aligned with the growing revolutionary sentiment. In 1775, he was elected to Georgia’s Provincial Congress, where he quickly rose to prominence due to his vocal support for independence from British rule. Although Georgia had initially shown less enthusiasm for independence than colonies like Massachusetts or Virginia, a growing faction of Georgia patriots, including Gwinnett, began advocating for stronger opposition to British rule. By 1776, Gwinnett had become a delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

Continental Congress and the Declaration

On January 20, 1776, Gwinnett left Georgia for Philadelphia to represent the colony in Congress. This appointment marked the pinnacle of his political career and placed him at the center of the deliberations for American independence. His journey to Philadelphia came at a crucial moment when the Continental Congress was moving toward a formal declaration of independence.

Gwinnett voted for independence on July 2, voted to approve the declaration on July 4, and signed his name to the parchment of the Declaration of Independence on August 2. Out of the 56 delegates who signed the Declaration, Button was one of only 8 who were born in Britain. His British birth added a unique perspective to his role as a Founding Father, representing the immigrant experience that was central to colonial American society.

His signing of the Declaration of Independence would later make his signature one of the most valuable autographs in American history. Gwinnett is known chiefly because his autographs are extremely rare and collectors have paid dearly to obtain one. (In 2001 one of his 36 known autographs sold at public auction for $110,000. Since then, several others have been documented.)

Conflict and Power Struggles in Georgia

Back in Georgia, Gwinnett became embroiled in a power struggle with General Lachlan McIntosh, a prominent figure in the colony’s revolutionary army. The conflict between Gwinnett and McIntosh was fueled by political rivalry and personal animosity. Gwinnett aspired to leadership positions within Georgia’s government and military, and in March 1777, he became acting president of Georgia’s Revolutionary Council after the sudden death of Governor Archibald Bulloch.

During his brief tenure as acting council president, Gwinnett’s leadership was controversial. He proposed a bold military expedition against British-controlled East Florida, intending to bolster his political standing and secure Georgia’s borders. However, the campaign was poorly executed, and it ended in failure. This debacle intensified the feud between Gwinnett and McIntosh, with each blaming the other for the military defeat.

Gwinnett’s promising political career was cut short by an ongoing personal conflict that became intertwined with the honor culture of the American South. The rivalry between Gwinnett and McIntosh reached its climax in May 1777. After a series of public insults—McIntosh called Gwinnett a “scoundrel and lying rascal,” Gwinnett responded by challenging him to a duel. Dueling, though technically illegal, was still a common way to resolve disputes among gentlemen of the period. On May 16, 1777, the two men faced each other with pistols in a pasture near Savannah. Both were wounded, but only Gwinnett’s injuries proved fatal. He died three days later, at age 42, and was buried in Savannah’s Colonial Park Cemetery, though the exact location of his grave is still unknown.

Legacy and Historical Significance

Gwinnett’s legacy is visible in his namesake Gwinnett County, one of Georgia’s most populous counties, a tribute to his contributions to the state’s early political history.

In recent decades, historians have taken a renewed interest in Button Gwinnett, examining his role beyond the narrow context of his duel and signature. While he lacked the fame of other founding fathers, Gwinnett’s political maneuvering and his role during the revolutionary period highlight the complexities of early American politics. His rivalry with McIntosh reflects the deep divisions and regional conflicts that existed even among those who supported independence.

Gwinnett’s life also underscores the risks faced by those who ventured into the revolutionary cause. Unlike many of his contemporaries who enjoyed long, celebrated careers, Gwinnett’s story is one of a meteoric rise and abrupt fall. His legacy, while overshadowed by more prominent figures, is a reminder of the many lesser-known men and women who played vital roles in America’s fight for independence.

Button Gwinnett’s life was marked by ambition, conflict, and an untimely death that left him as one of the more obscure figures of the American Revolution. His contributions to the independence movement in Georgia were significant, even if his political career was cut short. Today, Gwinnett’s name lives on in Georgia’s geography, and his autograph serves as a rare artifact of a fleeting yet impactful moment in history.

Sources:

· National Archives: Declaration of Independence Signers – https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers

· The Georgia Historical Society: Biography of Button Gwinnett – https://georgiahistory.com

· Smithsonian Magazine: The Rare Autograph of Button Gwinnett – https://www.smithsonianmag.com

· Library of Congress: Early American Biographies – https://www.loc.gov

“From The Halls of Montezuma”

By John Turley

On July 18, 2025

In History

The Evolution of the Marine Corps Hymn

The opening line of the Marine Corps Hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,” stands as one of the most recognizable phrases in American military tradition. But what are The Halls of Montezuma? Where are the Shores of Tripoli? Why are they important to Marines?

Few realize that this iconic song has undergone subtle but significant changes throughout its history, reflecting the Marine Corps’ evolution from a small naval force into a modern, multi-domain fighting organization.

The Original Battles

The hymn’s opening line commemorates two pivotal early battles that established the Marine Corps’ reputation for courage and effectiveness. “The Halls of Montezuma” refers to the Battle of Chapultepec during the Mexican American War in September 1847. Chapultepec Castle, perched on a hill overlooking Mexico City, was built on the site where Aztec Emperor Montezuma II once maintained his palaces and gardens. The fortress housed the Mexican military academy and served as a key defensive position protecting the capital. The term “Montezuma” evokes the grandeur of ancient Mexico, even though Montezuma himself had no connection to the castle. It was a bit of poetic license—common in martial songs—to evoke the exotic location and historic weight of the conquest.

During the assault on Chapultepec, Marines fought alongside Army units in a fierce battle against heavily fortified positions. The Marines’ performance in this engagement helped secure American victory and opened the path to Mexico City, effectively ending the war. This battle demonstrated that Marines could excel not just in naval operations but also in major land campaigns.

The “blood stripe”—the red stripe on Marine dress blue trousers—is traditionally said to honor the Marines who fell at Chapultepec, although this is more legend than documented fact.

The second half of the line, “to the shores of Tripoli,” reaches back even further to the First Barbary War (1801-1805). In this conflict, a small force of Marines participated in the capture of Derna, a fortified city on the Libyan coast. Led by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, the Marines marched across the desert with a motley force of mercenaries and Arab allies to attack the Barbary pirates’ stronghold. The success at Derna marked the first time the American flag was raised over a fortress in the Old World and established the Marines’ reputation for discipline, effectiveness, and fighting in exotic, far-flung locations.

Marine Corps officers still carry a Mameluke Sword based on the sword presented to Lt. O’Bannon by Ottoman Viceroy Prince Hamet in recognition of his valor.

The Hymn’s Origins

The Marine Corps Hymn emerged sometime in the 1840s or 1850s, shortly after the Mexican-American War. It was not officially adopted until 1929 when Commandant of the Marine Corps, Major General John A. Lejeune issued an order making it the official song of the Corps. Several variations of the lyrics were in use prior to that, and the words were standardized in the adoption order.

Unlike many military songs that were composed by established musicians, the hymn’s authorship remains uncertain. The melody was borrowed from a comic opera by Jacques Offenbach, but the words appear to have been written by Marines themselves, possibly at the Marine Barracks in Washington, D.C.

The original version celebrated these early victories with straightforward language: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country’s battles on the land as on the sea.” This phrasing reflected the Marine Corps’ dual nature as both a naval force and an expeditionary force capable of fighting anywhere American interests were threatened.

The Aviation Revolution

For nearly a century, the hymn remained largely unchanged. However, as the Marine Corps expanded its capabilities during the early 20th century, the traditional wording began to seem incomplete. The establishment of a Marine Aviation Company in 1915 and its expansion during World War I marked a significant evolution of the Corps’ mission and capabilities.

By World War II, Marine aviation had become a crucial component of the Corps’ fighting power. Marine pilots flew close air support missions, fought in aerial combat, and provided reconnaissance for ground forces. The Pacific theater, where Marines conducted their most famous campaigns, showcased the integration of air, land, and sea operations in ways that the original hymn could not capture.

The Historic Change

Recognition of this evolution came on November 21, 1942, when Commandant of the Marine Corps authorized an official change to the hymn’s first verse. The modification was originally proposed by Gunnery Sergeant H.L. Tallman, who recognized that the traditional phrasing no longer adequately described the Marines’ expanding role.

The fourth line of the first verse was changed from “on the land as on the sea” to “in the air, on land and sea.” This seemingly small addition carried profound significance. It acknowledged that Marines now operated in three environments rather than two, reflecting the Corps’ transformation into a modern, combined-arms force.

The timing of this change was crucial. Coming just as the United States was fully engaged in World War II, the revision recognized the vital role Marine aviation was playing in Pacific operations. From the skies over Guadalcanal to the beaches of Iwo Jima, Marine pilots were proving that air power was no longer a supporting element but an integral part of Marine Corps operations.

Legacy and Meaning

The evolution of the Marine Corps Hymn’s opening stanza reflects a broader story about military adaptation and institutional identity. The original battles at Montezuma and Tripoli established the Marines’ reputation for fighting in distant, challenging environments. The addition of “air” recognized that this tradition continued but now extended into new realms of warfare.

Today, when Marines sing “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,” they honor not just those early victories but the entire span of Corps history. The hymn connects modern Marines with their predecessors while acknowledging how the institution has grown and changed. The simple addition of one word in 1942 ensured that the Marine Corps Hymn would remain relevant for generations of Marines who would fight not just on land and sea, but in the air as well: preserving the past while embracing the future.

Peleliu: The Unnecessary Battle

By John Turley

On July 8, 2025

In History

Anyone with even a passing familiarity of the history of World War II knows about the major island campaigns in the Pacific: Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. But unless you are a student of military history or perhaps a former Marine, you’ve probably never heard of the Battle of Peleliu

The Battle of Peleliu, fought from September 15 to November 27, 1944, stands as one of the most controversial and costly operations in the Pacific Theater. This assault on the small coral island in the Palau chain reveals much about the complexities of strategic decision-making during wartime.

Objectives and Strategic Rationale

The primary objective was to capture Peleliu’s airfield to prevent Japanese aircraft from interfering with General MacArthur’s upcoming invasion of the Philippines. American planners believed that Japanese forces based on Peleliu could attack the right flank of the Philippine invasion force. Additionally, the island was seen as a potential base for supporting further operations against Japan in the western Pacific.

Military planners, especially Admiral Chester Nimitz and his staff, believed neutralizing Japanese air power on Peleliu was critical to protecting the Philippineinvasion. The airfield on the island, if left in Japanese hands, could theoretically pose a threat to operations in the southern Philippines or even to the fleet.

However, this concern was based on a misreading of Japan’s actual capacity to project power from the island. By late 1944, Japan’s air forces were significantly degraded, and their capacity to use the Peleliu airfield was minimal, if it existed at all.

The operation was planned as part of a broader strategy to neutralize Japanese strongholds and establish forward bases for the final push toward Japan. Admiral Nimitz initially supported the invasion, viewing it as necessary to protect MacArthur’s Philippine campaign and to continue the island-hopping strategy that had proven successful elsewhere in the Pacific.

Admiral William Halsey argued the operation was unnecessary, as American bombardment had already isolated Japanese forces and rendered the airfield unusable. However, Admiral Nimitz approved the invasion, believing cancellation logistically impractical because preparations were too far advanced. Marine commanders initially predicted a swift victory, with Major General William Rupertus claiming the island would fall in four days.

The Strategic Reality

In retrospect, Peleliu’s strategic value was far more limited than initially assessed. The island’s airfield, while operationally useful, was not critical to the success of the Philippine invasion. The Japanese garrison of approximately 11,000 troops under Colonel Kunio Nakagawa had transformed the island into a fortress, utilizing the coral caves and ridges to create an intricate defensive system that would exact a terrible price from the attackers.

The 1st Marine Division, supported by the 81st Infantry Division, ultimately secured the island, but at enormous cost. American casualties totaled over 9,000, with nearly 1,800 killed in action. Japanese losses were almost total, with fewer than 200 prisoners taken from the original garrison.

Post-Battle Assessment

After the battle’s conclusion, many military leaders questioned whether the operation had been worth its tremendous cost in human lives. The strategic benefits gained were minimal compared to the losses sustained. The airfield was not essential to subsequent operations, and the island’s location proved less critical than originally believed.

Military historians increasingly view Peleliu as an example of how the initial strategic and tactical assessments proved flawed when planners failed to recognize the evolution of Japanese defensive tactics, which emphasized fighting from prepared positions rather than the banzai charges that had characterized earlier encounters.

Historical Significance

Peleliu is overshadowed in World War II histories by larger, more decisive battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. However, it served as a crucial learning experience for American forces, providing insights into Japanese defensive innovations that would prove valuable in later operations. The battle highlighted the importance of accurate intelligence and realistic strategic assessment.

The intense fighting on Peleliu also demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of American forces under extremely challenging conditions. The prolonged nature of the battle, lasting over two months instead of the predicted few days, tested logistics, medical support, and command structures in ways that informed future operations.

The Aftermath

While the immediate strategic gains from Peleliu were limited, the battle did provide several important advantages. It eliminated a potential threat to Allied shipping lanes in the region and provided valuable experience in assaulting heavily fortified positions. The lessons learned about Japanese defensive tactics, the importance of coordinated air and ground support, and the challenges of fighting in coral terrain all contributed to improved performance in subsequent operations.

Perhaps most significantly, Peleliu demonstrated the need for more careful strategic evaluation of objectives relative to costs. This lesson influenced planning for later operations and contributed to discussions about alternative strategies for ending the war in the Pacific. In specific, the battle demonstrated Japan’s willingness to fight to the death and perhaps may have indirectly influenced the decision to use atomic bombs to avoid similar carnage in a main island invasion.

The Battle of Peleliu remains a sobering reminder of the complexities of wartime strategy and the human cost of military operations. While its immediate strategic value was questionable, its role in the broader context of Pacific War operations and its lessons for military planning ensured its place in the historical record of World War II.

The U.S. Public Health Service: Guardians of America’s Health

By John Turley

On July 3, 2025

In Commentary, History, Medicine

The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) has quietly served as the backbone of the nation’s public health infrastructure for over two centuries. From its beginnings as a maritime medical service to its current role as a comprehensive public health organization, the USPHS has evolved to meet the changing medical challenges facing Americans and to protect and promote the health of the nation.

Origins and Early History

The U.S. Public Health Service traces back to 1798, when President John Adams signed “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” This legislation established the Marine Hospital Service and created a network of hospitals to care for the merchant sailors who served America’s growing maritime commerce. The act represented one of the first examples of federally mandated health insurance, as ship owners were required to pay 20 cents per month per sailor to fund medical care.

The Marine Hospital Service initially operated a series of hospitals in major port cities including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. These facilities served not only sick and injured sailors but also played a crucial role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases that could arrive on ships from foreign ports. This dual function of treatment and prevention would become a defining characteristic of the USPHS mission.

The transformation from the Marine Hospital Service to the modern Public Health Service began in the late 19th century. In 1889, the organization was restructured and placed under the supervision of Dr. John Maynard Woodworth as Supervising Surgeon—later Surgeon General—marking the beginning of its evolution into a more comprehensive public health agency. The name was officially changed to the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service in 1902, and finally to the U.S. Public Health Service in 1912, reflecting its expanded mandate beyond maritime health.

Evolution and Expansion

The early 20th century brought significant expansion to the USPHS mission. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act gave the service regulatory responsibilities, leading to the creation of what would eventually become the Food and Drug Administration. During World War I, the USPHS took on additional responsibilities for military health and epidemic control, establishing its role as a rapid response organization for national health emergencies.

The Great Depression and World War II further expanded the service’s scope. The Social Security Act of 1935 created new public health programs administered by the USPHS, while wartime demands led to increased focus on occupational health, environmental health hazards, and the health needs of defense workers. The post-war period saw the establishment of the National Institutes of Health—originally called the Laboratory of Hygiene—as part of the USPHS, cementing its role in medical research.

Major Functions and Modern Roles

Today’s U.S. Public Health Service operates as part of the Department of Health and Human Services and supports major agencies and functions. The service’s mission centers on protecting, promoting, and advancing the health and safety of the American people through several key areas.

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion are the core of USPHS activities. It works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to lead national efforts in the prevention and control of infectious and chronic diseases. From tracking disease outbreaks to promoting vaccination programs, the USPHS a part of America’s first line of defense against health threats.

Regulatory and Safety Functions represent other crucial areas. The USPHS coordinates with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and efficacy of medications, medical devices, and food products. It works with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry monitoring environmental health hazards. Other USPHS components are involved in regulating everything from clinical laboratories to health insurance portability.

Emergency Response and Preparedness has become increasingly important in recent decades. The USPHS maintains rapid response capabilities for natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and public health emergencies. This includes the deployment of Commissioned Corps officers to disaster zones and the maintenance of strategic national stockpiles of medical supplies.

Health Services for Underserved Populations continues the service’s historic mission of providing care where it’s most needed. The Health Resources and Services Administration oversees community health centers, rural health programs, and initiatives to address health disparities among vulnerable populations. The Indian Health Service is an important part of the USPHS, providing healthcare to often isolated communities.

The Commissioned Corps

One of the most distinctive features of the USPHS is its Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of over 6,000 public health professionals. Established in 1889, the Corps operates as one of the eight uniformed services of the United States, alongside the armed forces, NOAA Corps, and Coast Guard. Officers hold military-style ranks and wear uniforms, but their mission focuses entirely on public health rather than defense.

The Commissioned Corps provides a ready reserve of highly trained health professionals who can be rapidly deployed to address public health emergencies. From hurricane and disaster relief to pandemic assessment and treatment, Corps officers have served on the front lines of America’s health challenges, providing everything from direct patient care to epidemiological investigation and public health program management.

Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions

The U.S. Public Health Service continues to evolve in response to emerging health challenges. Climate change, antimicrobial resistance, mental health crises, and health equity concerns represent current priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated both the critical importance of robust public health infrastructure and the challenges of maintaining public trust in health authorities.

As America faces an increasingly complex health landscape, the USPHS mission of protecting and promoting the nation’s health remains as relevant as ever. From its origins serving sailors in port cities to its current role addressing global health threats, the U.S. Public Health Service continues its quiet but essential work of safeguarding American health, adapting its methods while maintaining its core commitment to serving the public good.

The service’s history shows that effective public health requires not just scientific expertise, but also the institutional ability to respond rapidly to emerging threats, the authority to implement necessary interventions, and the public trust to lead national health initiatives. As new challenges appear, the USPHS continues to build on its more than two-century legacy of service to the American people.

Declaring Independence: The Origin of America’s Founding Document

By John Turley

On June 30, 2025

In History, Politics

When Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, we imagine fireworks, flags, and a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence. We think we know the story—The Continental Congress selected Thomas Jefferson to write the declaration. He labored alone to produce this famous document. Congress then approved it unanimously and it was signed on the 4th of July.

But the truth is far different and more complex. The story behind this iconic document—the how, who, and why of its creation—is just as explosive and illuminating as the day it represents. Far from a spontaneous outburst of rebellion, the Declaration was the product of political strategy, collaborative writing, and a shared sense of urgency among men who knew their words would change the course of history.

Setting the Stage: Why a Declaration?

By the spring of 1776, the American colonies were deep in conflict with Great Britain. Battles at Lexington and Concord had already been fought. George Washington was attempting to transform the Continental Army into a professional fighting force. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense had ignited widespread public support for full separation from the British Crown. The Continental Congress had been meeting in Philadelphia, debating how far they were willing to go. By June, the mood had shifted from reconciliation to revolution.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced a resolution to the Continental Congress declaring “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” The motion was controversial—some delegates wanted more time to consult their colonies. But most in Congress knew that if independence was going to happen, it needed to be explained and justified to the world, so they created a committee to draft a formal declaration.

The Committee of Five

On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” to write the declaration. The members were:

Thomas Jefferson of Virginia
John Adams of Massachusetts
Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania
Roger Sherman of Connecticut
Robert R. Livingston of New York

This was not a random selection. Each man represented a different region of the colonies and had earned the trust of fellow delegates. Jefferson was relatively young but already known for his eloquence. Adams was an outspoken advocate of independence. Franklin brought wisdom, wit, diplomatic experience, and international prestige. Sherman brought New England theological perspectives and legislative experience, while Livingston represented the more moderate New York delegation and brought keen legal insight.

Jefferson Takes the Pen

Although it was a group project on paper, the heavy lifting fell to Thomas Jefferson. The committee chose him to draft the initial version. Why Jefferson? According to John Adams, Jefferson was chosen for three reasons: he was from Virginia (the most influential colony), he was popular, and, Adams admitted, “you can write ten times better than I can.”

Jefferson wrote the draft in a rented room at 700 Market Street in Philadelphia. He leaned heavily on Enlightenment ideas, especially those of John Locke, emphasizing natural rights and the notion that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. He also borrowed phrasing from earlier colonial declarations, including his own A Summary View of the Rights of British America and borrowed extensively from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.

The Editing Process: Group Work Gets Messy

After Jefferson completed the initial draft (likely by June 28), he shared it with Adams and Franklin. Both men suggested revisions. Franklin, ever the editor, softened some of Jefferson’s sharpest attacks and corrected language for flow and diplomacy. His most famous contribution was changing Jefferson’s phrase “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to the more secular and philosophically precise “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Adams contributed to structural suggestions and to tone. He also contributed to the strategic presentation of grievances against King George III, understanding that the declaration needed to justify revolution in terms that would be acceptable to both colonial readers and potential European allies.

Sherman and Livingston played more limited but still meaningful roles. Sherman, with his theological background, helped ensure the document’s religious references would appeal to Puritan New England, while Livingston’s legal expertise helped refine the constitutional arguments against British rule. Otherwise, their involvement in the actual content of the declaration was likely minimal.

The revised draft was presented to the full Continental Congress on June 28, 1776. What followed was a few days of intense debate and revision by the entire body.

Congress Takes the Red Pen

From July 1 to July 4, the Continental Congress debated the resolution for independence and edited the Declaration. Jefferson watched as more than two dozen changes were made to his prose. The Congress cut about a quarter of the original text, including a lengthy passage condemning King George III for perpetuating the transatlantic slave trade that would have sparked deep division among the delegates, especially those from Southern colonies.

Other modifications included strengthening the religious language, toning down some of the more inflammatory rhetoric, and making the grievances more specific and legally grounded. Congress made 86 edits, removing about a quarter of Jefferson’s original content. Jefferson was reportedly frustrated by the changes, calling them “mutilations,” but he recognized that compromise was the cost of consensus

Approval and Promulgation

Despite the extensive revisions, the core of Jefferson’s vision remained intact and on July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted in favor of Lee’s resolution for independence. That’s the actual date the colonies officially broke from Britain. John Adams even predicted in a letter to his wife that July 2 would be celebrated forever as America’s Independence Day. He was close—but the official adoption of the Declaration came two days later.

On July 4, 1776, Congress formally approved the final version of the Declaration of Independence. Contrary to popular belief, most of the signers did not sign it on that day. Only John Hancock, as president of Congress, and Charles Thomson, as secretary, signed then. The famous handwritten version, now in the National Archives, wasn’t signed until August 2. But the document approved on July 4 was immediately printed by John Dunlap, the official printer to Congress.

These first copies, known as Dunlap Broadsides, were distributed throughout the colonies and sent to military leaders, state assemblies, and even King George III. George Washington had it read aloud to the Continental Army. This rapid dissemination was crucial to its impact, as it was needed to rally public support for the revolutionary cause and explain the colonies’ actions to the world.

Legacy and Impact

The Declaration wasn’t just a break-up letter to the British Crown—it was a manifesto for a new kind of political order. Its assertion that “all men are created equal” would echo through centuries of American history, invoked by abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights leaders, and more.

The creation of the Declaration of Independence demonstrates that even the most iconic documents in American history emerged from collaborative processes involving compromise, revision, and collective wisdom. While Jefferson deserves primary credit for the document’s eloquent expression of revolutionary ideals, the contributions of his committee colleagues and the broader Continental Congress were essential to creating a text that could unite thirteen diverse colonies in common cause.

This collaborative origin reflects the democratic principles the declaration itself proclaimed, showing that American independence was achieved not through the vision of a single individual, but through the collective efforts of representatives working together to articulate their shared commitment to liberty, equality, and self-governance. The process that created the Declaration of Independence thus embodied the very democratic ideals it proclaimed to the world.

Today, the Declaration of Independence is enshrined as one of the foundational texts of American democracy. But it’s worth remembering that it was created under immense pressure, forged by committee, and edited by compromise. Its authors knew they were taking a dangerous step. As Franklin quipped at the signing, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

The Origin of Juneteenth: America’s Second Independence Day

By John Turley

On June 16, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

The Juneteenth flag is red, white, and blue to reflect the American flag and includes a bursting star to symbolize freedom.

On June 19, 1865, an event that would forever change American history unfolded in Galveston, Texas. Union Major General Gordon Granger stood before a crowd and read General Order No. 3, announcing that “all slaves are free.” This proclamation marked the beginning of what we now celebrate as Juneteenth, America’s newest federal holiday and a day that celebrates the fulfillment of emancipation for all enslaved people in the United States.

Delayed Freedom

The story of Juneteenth begins with a troubling gap between law and reality. President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring freedom for enslaved people in states “…in rebellion against the United States”. However, enforcement depended on the advance of Union troops and In the Confederate state of Texas—remote and beyond Union control—the proclamation went unenforced for more than two years. Many slaveholders deliberately withheld information about emancipation, and the absence of Union forces meant that freedom remained out of reach for thousands.

Even after the Civil War effectively ended in April 1865 with Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, news of emancipation remained deliberately suppressed in Texas. Some enslavers continued to hold people in bondage through the spring planting season. It wasn’t until federal troops arrived in Galveston in sufficient force to ensure compliance that the promise of emancipation became reality for the last enslaved Americans.

Birth of a Celebration

The newly freed Texans didn’t wait for official recognition to begin celebrating their liberation. They called it Juneteenth, a combination of June and nineteenth and celebrations erupted spontaneously across Texas as communities gathered to commemorate their freedom with prayer, music, food, and fellowship. These early celebrations were deeply rooted in African American culture, featuring traditional foods and drinks, spirituals and folk songs, and the retelling of the freedom story to younger generations.

As African Americans moved from Texas to other parts of the country during the Great Migration, they carried Juneteenth traditions with them. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Juneteenth celebrations grew, often featuring parades, music, food, and family gatherings. The holiday’s popularity waned during the mid-20th century but experienced a resurgence during the Civil Rights Movement, as activists sought to reconnect with their heritage and the ongoing struggle for equality.

From Regional Tradition to National Recognition

For over a century, Juneteenth was primarily a regional and cultural celebration rather than an official holiday. Texas became the first state to make Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, other states followed gradually. The movement gained momentum in the 21st century as Americans increasingly recognized the need to acknowledge the full history of emancipation.

The nationwide racial justice protests of 2020 brought renewed attention to Juneteenth’s significance. On June 17, 2021, President Joe Biden signed legislation making Juneteenth a federal holiday, acknowledging it as both a celebration of freedom and a reminder of America’s ongoing journey toward equality.

A Day of Reflection and Celebration

Today, Juneteenth serves multiple purposes in American life. It’s a day of celebration, honoring the resilience and culture of African Americans. It’s also a day of education, reminding all Americans about the complexities of emancipation and the ongoing struggle for civil rights. Most importantly, it stands for hope—proof that progress, however delayed, is possible when people demand justice and equality. It honors the struggles and achievements of African Americans, reminding us of the enduring importance of freedom, perseverance, and hope in the face of adversity. As communities gather each year to celebrate Juneteenth, they continue the tradition of remembering the past while striving for a more inclusive and equitable future

Juneteenth stands as a testament to the truth that freedom delayed need not be freedom denied.

Juneteenth is not an official state holiday in West Virginia. In prior years, former governor Jim Justice issued a proclamation declaring Juneteenth a paid holiday for state employees. The current governor has made no such proclamation. Those who are planning the Juneteenth celebration in West Virginia have scheduled a Juneteenth parade for June 20th, West Virginia Day, which is an official state holiday.

From Breaker Boys to Burger Flippers: The Resurgence of Child Labor in America

By John Turley

On May 25, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

What West Virginia’s new child labor law tells us about a growing trend and a forgotten history.

📜 Introduction
In April 2025, West Virginia passed a law eliminating work permit requirements for 14- and 15-year-olds and opening hazardous occupations to older teens. It’s a policy shift that echoes a much darker chapter of American history—one most of us thought was long behind us.

As I read the news, I couldn’t help but recall Lewis Hine’s haunting photos of the “Breaker Boys”—children as young as eight sorting coal in dangerous conditions. Their faces were the face of American industry at its most exploitative. Their plight helped spark the labor reforms we now take for granted.

But are those reforms at risk of unraveling?

🕰 A Brief History of Child Labor in America
At the turn of the 20th century, over two million American children worked long hours in factories, coal mines, and fields. Some were as young as five. The wages were low, the conditions dangerous, and the toll—educational, emotional, and physical—immeasurable.

Most of these children came from poor or immigrant families. Factory and mine owners favored child labor because it was cheap, compliant, and expendable.

⚖️ Early Reforms and Legal Battles
The reform movement gained traction in the early 1900s thanks to activists, labor unions, and journalists. The National Child Labor Committee, founded in 1904, worked with photographers like Lewis Hine to expose the brutality of child labor to the American public.

Attempts to legislate federally met fierce resistance. The Keating-Owen Act (1916) was struck down by the Supreme Court in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), and a second effort was defeated in 1923. It wasn’t until the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 that the federal government established real guardrails:

Prohibited employment under 16 in manufacturing/mining
Banned hazardous work under 18
Limited working hours for minors
Authorized federal inspections

The FLSA marked the beginning of consistent national protections for working children.

🎓 Child Labor and Education: A Damaging Tradeoff
There’s a well-documented tradeoff between child labor and education:

Working children attend school less, perform worse, and are more likely to drop out.
Child labor perpetuates intergenerational poverty.
Education access is key to breaking this cycle—but only if children aren’t too exhausted or endangered to learn.

Even today, agricultural labor laws allow children as young as 12 to work long hours, especially among migrant families. These children have some of the country’s highest school dropout rates.

📉 Modern Rollbacks: A Disturbing Trend
Since 2021, over a dozen U.S. states have proposed or passed laws rolling back child labor protections, often citing labor shortages or “career readiness”:

Arkansas (2023): Removed permit and parental consent requirements for 14- and 15-year-olds.
Iowa: Now allows minors in meatpacking and industrial work, with waivers.
Kentucky: Loosened hour limits during the school year.
Other states: Missouri, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and others are following suit.

Critics warn that these laws open the door to exploitation, especially in lower-income communities.

🧠 Why It Matters
The repeal of child labor protections isn’t just a policy dispute—it’s a moral referendum. If child labor laws are weakened, the most vulnerable children will bear the cost, just as they did a century ago.

The lesson from history is simple: when economic hardship or political expediency trumps child welfare, it’s children who are put at risk.

📣 Final Thoughts
Public memory is short. But the bodies of exhausted child laborers buried in unknown graves and the broken educational paths of working teens are silent witnesses to the past—and a warning for the future.

If we claim to value children’s futures, our policies must reflect that—not just in schools, but in the workplace.

🔗 Sources and Suggested Further Reading

U.S. Department of Labor: Child Labor Provisions
National Child Labor Committee Archives
Keating-Owen Act Summary – OurDocuments.gov