Transcription of the Declaration of Independence, plus links to the Declaration at the National Archives.

This document, writted originally by Thomas Jefferson in June of 1776 documents the greivances that the colonists had against King George and asserts our right to be an independent state.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett

Lyman Hall

George Walton

Column 2

North Carolina:

William Hooper

Joseph Hewes

John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.

Arthur Middleton

Column 3

Massachusetts:

John Hancock

Maryland:

Samuel Chase

William Paca

Thomas Stone

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Harrison

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Francis Lightfoot Lee

Carter Braxton

Column 4

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Franklin

John Morton

George Clymer

James Smith

George Taylor

James Wilson

George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney

George Read

Thomas McKean

Column 5

New York:

William Floyd

Philip Livingston

Francis Lewis

Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton

John Witherspoon

Francis Hopkinson

John Hart

Abraham Clark

Column 6

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett

William Whipple

Massachusetts:

Samuel Adams

John Adams

Robert Treat Paine

Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins

William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman

Samuel Huntington

William Williams

Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:

Matthew Thornton

Thanks to the National Archives for the continued preservation of this document as well as the above transcription. Images of an engraving used to print copies of the Declaration of Independance, as well as images of an actual copy are available at The National Archives High resolution images are available as well as previews. (See their Charters of Freedom Page.)

Had D-Day failed where would the twentieth century have run, what depths of evil would we have seen? Would there have been a will to try again and again until the Atlantic Wall was finally breached? Would that failure have cemented and paved the way for further German advancements (and atrocities). How different would our world look if it were not for those brave souls that ran headlong into hell on earth. It’s remarkable even miraculous that the operation succeeded and unthinkable that we could live with a world where it failed.

Several days ago I saw a bumper sticker that said “war sucks, why fight it?” While it’s a trite little quote and I’m sure it’s a popular thought, the person that has affixed that to their car is in desperate need of a history lesson. No one in their right mind likes war. It is merciless, does not discriminate victims, the innocent and the guilty can suffer in disproportionate ways with the innocent and blameless usually seeing the worst effects while the guilty perpetrators live the high life. I worry for our future though when there are many people that don’t realize that sometimes there are times that a free society HAS to stand up and fight because as terrible as war is, the consequences of NOT fighting are unimaginable. The fight against Germany in World War II was that kind of fight, the consequences of failure to stop them were unthinkable.

Today we are fighting extremism of a different kind, but it is the kind that has far reaching goals. Religious extremism from what some people term islamic fascists has among it’s goals the restructuring of our world order where their vision of Islam rules and those that don’t follow their religious path are killed or subservient to their worldview. Do you remember in the 1990′s the Talibans rule of Afghanistan? Now, imagine a world governed by those rules. Unthinkable. Now, I know that all Muslims do not think as the extremists do. Our war is not against a religion, but against fanatics that have used this religion to further their own power in an attempt to mold the world into their dim and narrow view of how things should be. Our war is against those that would direct teenagers and younger to blow themselves up at checkpoints and shopping centers, pizza places and dance clubs.

The extremists terrorists of today do not count on the vast armies and weapons stores that Germany in 1944 did and perhaps that’s why it’s so easy to be indifferent. It’s certainly easy to fear the power of a giant with a large build and towering muscles, todays jihadist’s certainly don’t appear to be sweeping over parts of the world as German armies did in the 30s and 40s. My concern though is that indifference will lead to their opportunity and the world may in the not so distant future again face the unimaginable. We may yet again face a world wide war against those that wish to impose their will upon ALL free nations. Would we today be able to rise up and face that?

The years after World War II, there was a mantra of never letting such a thing happen again and while certainly there have been wars, there have not been any on the scope and destruction of the Second World War. May we pray that we never again see such a spilling of blood, but may we also pray that we be prepared to make the same sacrifices in the cause of liberty and freedom for future generations if our fates demand it. The consequences of losing our freedoms and liberties are truly unimaginable.

I would like to express the greatest and deepest thanks to all of those that, over the many years have risen to the task to save our society, as vapid, self absorbed and narcissistic as we many times are. I notice today that Google which many times changes their logo on their search engine to commemorate a memorable day, today is commemorating the 25th anniversary of the game Tetris…. The fact that we have the freedoms to be so trivial as well as to reach such great heights as we have in the 65 years since D-Day would be impossible to imagine without great sacrifices such as those in Normandy 65 years ago today. I suppose in many ways it’s fitting that it is just another day to so many people. That is, I suspect, EXACTLY what those people were fighting for, so that life would be about a picnic, or working in the garden, reading a book, going to work or simply playing a game. Really, they fought that day, as strange as it sounds, so that we, today, could have peace.

With that I move on to post a History of United States Presidential Elections…

From The Wikipedia

Elections for President and Vice President of the United States are indirect elections that occur quadrennially (the count beginning with the year 1792) on Election Day, the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Voters cast ballots for a slate of electors of the U.S. Electoral College, who in turn directly elect the President and Vice President. The most recent election occurred on November 2, 2004. The next election is scheduled for November 4, 2008.

The process is regulated by a combination of both federal and state laws. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Additionally, Washington, D.C. is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state legislature is allowed to designate a method of choosing electors. Thus, the popular vote on Election Day is conducted by the various states and not directly by the federal government. Once chosen, the Electoral College electors can vote for anyone, but – with rare exceptions like an unpledged elector or faithless elector – they vote for their designated candidates and their votes are certified by Congress in early January. The Congress is the final judge of the electors; the last serious dispute was in United States presidential election, 2000.

The nomination process, including the primary elections and the nominating conventions, were never specified in the Constitution, and were instead developed by the states and the political parties.

History

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution originally established the method of presidential elections, including the electoral college. This was a result of a compromise between those constitutional framers who wanted the Congress to choose the president, and those who preferred a national popular vote.

Each state is allocated a number of electors that is equal to the size of its delegation in both houses of Congress combined. With the ratification of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution in 1961, the District of Columbia is also granted a number of electors, equal to the number of those held by the least populous state.

Under the original system established by Article Two, electors could cast two votes to two different candidates for president. The candidate with the highest number of votes became the president, and the second-place candidate became the vice president. This presented a problem during the presidential election of 1800 when Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes as Thomas Jefferson and challenged Jefferson’s election to the office. In the end, Jefferson was chosen as the president due to Alexander Hamilton’s influence in the House of Representatives. This created a deep rivalry between Burr and Hamilton which resulted in their famous 1804 duel.

In response to the 1800 election, the 12th Amendment was passed, requiring electors to cast two distinct votes: one for President and another for Vice President. The Amendment also established rules when no candidate wins a majority vote in the Electoral College. If no candidate receives a majority, the selection of President is decided by a ballot of the House of Representatives. For the purposes of electing the President, each state only has one vote. A ballot of the Senate is held to choose the Vice President. In this ballot, each senator has one vote. If the President is not chosen by Inauguration Day, the Vice President-elect acts as President. If neither are chosen by then, Congress by law determines who shall act as President, pursuant to the 20th Amendment.

In the presidential election of 1824, Andrew Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority, of electoral votes cast. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was elected to the presidency. In this case as well, a deep rivalry was fermented, this time between Andrew Jackson and House Speaker Henry Clay, who had also been a candidate in the election.

Constitutionally, the manner for choosing electors is determined within each state by its legislature. Gradually throughout the years, the states began conducting popular elections to help choose their slate of electors, resulting in the overall, nationwide indirect election system that it is today.

Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a Presidential election and still win that election. This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking to replace the Electoral College with a direct popular vote, but none has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.

Nominating process

The modern nominating process of U.S. presidential elections currently consists of two major parts: a series of presidential primary elections and caucuses held in each state, and the presidential nominating conventions held by each political party. This process was never included in the United States Constitution, and thus evolved over time by the political parties to clear the field of candidates.

The primary elections and caucuses are run by state and local governments. Some states only hold primary elections, some only hold caucuses, and others use a combination of both. These primaries and caucuses are staggered between January and June before the federal election, with Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally holding the first presidential state caucus and primary, respectively.

Like the general election, presidential caucuses or primaries are indirect elections. The major political parties officially vote for their presidential candidate at their respective nominating conventions, usually all held in the summer before the federal election. Depending on each state’s law and state’s political party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may actually be voting to award delegates “bound” to vote for a candidate at the presidential nominating conventions, or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to their respective national convention.

In addition to delegates chosen during primaries and caucuses, state delegations to both the Democratic and Republican conventions also include “unpledged” delegates who can vote for whomever they want. For Republicans, these include top party officials. Democrats have a more expansive group of unpledged delegates called “superdelegates”, who are party leaders and elected officials.

Each party’s presidential candidate also chooses a vice presidential nominee to run with him on the same ticket, and this choice is basically rubber-stamped by the convention.

The popular vote on Election Day

Under the constitution, the manner for choosing electors for the Electoral College is determined by each state’s legislature. Today, the states and the District of Columbia each conduct their own popular elections on Election Day to help determine their respective slate of electors. Thus, the presidential election is really an amalgamation of separate and simultaneous state elections instead of a single national election run by the federal government.

Like any other election in the United States, the eligibility of an individual for voting is set out in the Constitution and also regulated at state level. The Constitution states that suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of race or color, sex or age for citizens eighteen years or older. Beyond these basic qualifications, it is the responsibility of state legislatures to regulate voter eligibility.

Generally, voters are required to vote on a ballot where they select the candidate of their choice. The presidential ballot is actually voting “for the electors of a candidate” meaning that the voter is not actually voting for the candidate, but endorsing a slate of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate.

Many voting ballots allow a voter to “blanket vote” for all candidates in a particular political party or to select individual candidates on a line by line voting system. Which candidates appear on the voting ticket is determined through a legal process known as ballot access. Usually, the size of the candidate’s political party and the results of the major nomination conventions determine who is pre-listed on the presidential ballot. Thus, the presidential election ticket will not list every single candidate running for President, but only those who have secured a major party nomination or whose size of their political party warrants having been formally listed. Laws are in effect to have other candidates pre-listed on a ticket, provided that a sufficient number of voters have endorsed the candidate, usually through a signature list. Never, however, in U.S. history has a 3rd party candidate for president secured a place on the election ticket in this fashion.[citation needed]

The final way to be elected for president is to have one’s name written in at the time of election as a write-in candidate. This is used for candidates who did not fulfill the legal requirements to be pre-listed on the voting ticket. It is also used by voters to express a distaste for the listed candidates, by writing in a ridiculous candidate for president such as Mickey Mouse. In any event, a write-in candidate has never won an election for President of the United States.

Electoral college

Most state laws establish a plurality voting system (“winner-take-all”), under which the ticket that wins the most popular votes in a state wins all of that state’s allocated electoral votes, and thus has their slate of electors chosen to vote in the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska do not use this method, opting instead to give two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one electoral vote to the winner of each Congressional district.

Each state’s winning slate of electors then meets at their respective state’s capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President. Although Electoral College members can technically vote for anyone under the U.S. Constitution, 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors, those who do not cast their electoral votes for the person whom they have pledged to elect.

In early January, the total Electoral College vote count is opened by the sitting Vice President, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, and read aloud to a joint session of the incoming Congress, which was elected at the same time as the President. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote (currently at least 270), the President is determined by the rules outlined by the 12th Amendment.

Unless there are faithless electors, disputes, or other controversies, the events in December and January mentioned above are largely a formality in the public eye since the winner can be determined based on the state-by-state popular vote results.

Trends

In recent decades, one of the presidential nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties has almost always been an incumbent president or a sitting or former vice president. When the candidate has not been a president or vice president, nominees of the two main parties have been state Governors or U.S. Senators. The last nominee from either party who had not previously served in such an office was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who won the Republican nomination and ultimately the presidency in the 1952 election.

A number of trends in the political experience of presidents have been observed over the years. The first was the place of Secretary of State as a “stepping-stone” to the White House, with five of the six Presidents who served between 1801 and 1841 previously holding that office. However, since 1841, only one Secretary of State has gone on to be President (James Buchanan). Contemporary electoral success has clearly favored state governors. Of the last five presidents, four (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) have been governors of a state (all except for George H. W. Bush). Geographically, these presidents were from either very large states (California, Texas) or from a state south of the Mason-Dixon Line and east of Texas (Georgia, Arkansas). In all, sixteen presidents have been former governors, including seven who were in office as governor as the time of their election to the presidency.

Fifteen presidents have previously served in the Senate, including four of the five Presidents who served between 1945 and 1974. However, only two were sitting U.S. Senators at the time they were elected president (Warren G. Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in 1960). Major-party candidate Senators Andrew Jackson (1824), Lewis Cass (1848), Stephen Douglas (1860), Barry Goldwater (1964), George McGovern (1972), and John Kerry (2004) all lost their elections. No sitting member of the House of Representatives has been elected president, although eighteen presidents have been former members of the House. Fourteen presidents have previously served as vice presidents. In 2008, the nominees of both major-parties are sitting U.S. Senators, so a senator will probably be elected president for the 2009-2013 term.

Results
Order Election year Winner Other major candidates[2]
1st 1789 George Washington (none) John Adams (none)
John Jay (none)
Robert H. Harrison (none)
John Rutledge (none)
2nd 1792 George Washington (none) John Adams (Federalist)
George Clinton (Democratic-Republican)
3rd 1796 John Adams (Federalist) Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican)
Thomas Pinckney (Federalist)
Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican)
Samuel Adams (Democratic-Republican)
Oliver Ellsworth (Federalist)
George Clinton (Democratic-Republican)
4th 1800 Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican)
John Adams (Federalist)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Federalist)
5th 1804 Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Federalist)
6th 1808 James Madison (Democratic-Republican) Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Federalist)
George Clinton (Democratic-Republican)
James Monroe (Democratic-Republican)
7th 1812 James Madison (Democratic-Republican) DeWitt Clinton (Federalist)
8th 1816 James Monroe (Democratic-Republican) Rufus King (Federalist)
9th 1820 James Monroe (Democratic-Republican) (not opposed)
10th 1824*† John Quincy Adams* (Democratic-Republican) Andrew Jackson† (Democratic-Republican)
William H. Crawford (Democratic-Republican)
Henry Clay (Democratic-Republican)
11th 1828 Andrew Jackson (Democrat) John Quincy Adams (National Republican)
12th 1832 Andrew Jackson (Democrat) Henry Clay (National Republican)
John Floyd (Nullifier)
William Wirt (Anti-Masonic)
13th 1836 Martin Van Buren (Democrat) William Henry Harrison (Whig)
Hugh Lawson White (Whig)
Daniel Webster (Whig)
Willie Person Mangum (Whig)
14th 1840 William Henry Harrison (Whig) Martin Van Buren (Democrat)
15th 1844* James K. Polk* (Democrat) Henry Clay (Whig)
James G. Birney (Liberty)
16th 1848 Zachary Taylor (Whig) Lewis Cass (Democrat)
Martin Van Buren (Free Soil)
17th 1852 Franklin Pierce (Democrat) Winfield Scott (Whig)
John P. Hale (Free Soil)
18th 1856* James Buchanan* (Democrat) John C. Frémont (Republican)
Millard Fillmore (American Party/Whig)
19th 1860* Abraham Lincoln* (Republican) John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat)
John Bell (Constitutional Union)
Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat)
20th 1864 Abraham Lincoln (National Union) George B. McClellan (Democrat)
21st 1868 Ulysses S. Grant (Republican) Horatio Seymour (Democrat)
22nd 1872 Ulysses S. Grant (Republican) Horace Greeley (Democrat/Liberal Republican)[3]
Thomas A. Hendricks (Democrat)
B. Gratz Brown (Democrat/Liberal Republican)
Charles J. Jenkins (Democrat)
23rd 1876*‡ Rutherford B. Hayes* (Republican) Samuel J. Tilden‡ (Democrat)
24th 1880* James A. Garfield* (Republican) Winfield Scott Hancock (Democrat)
James Weaver (Greenback)
25th 1884* Grover Cleveland* (Democrat) James G. Blaine (Republican)
John St. John Prohibition)
Benjamin Butler (Greenback)
26th 1888*† Benjamin Harrison* (Republican) Grover Cleveland† (Democrat)
Clinton B. Fisk (Prohibition)
Alson Streeter (Union Labor)
27th 1892* Grover Cleveland* (Democrat) Benjamin Harrison (Republican)
James Weaver (Populist)
John Bidwell (Prohibition)
28th 1896 William McKinley (Republican) William Jennings Bryan (Democrat/Populist)
29th 1900 William McKinley (Republican) William Jennings Bryan (Democrat)
John Woolley (Prohibition)
30th 1904 Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) Alton B. Parker (Democrat)
Eugene V. Debs (Socialist)
Silas Swallow (Prohibition)
31st 1908 William Howard Taft (Republican) William Jennings Bryan (Democrat)
Eugene V. Debs (Socialist)
Eugene Chafin (Prohibition)
32nd 1912* Woodrow Wilson* (Democrat) Theodore Roosevelt (Bull-Moose)
William Howard Taft (Republican)
Eugene V. Debs (Socialist)
Eugene Chafin (Prohibition)
33rd 1916* Woodrow Wilson* (Democrat) Charles Evans Hughes (Republican)
Allan L. Benson (Socialist)
James Hanly (Prohibition)
34th 1920 Warren G. Harding (Republican) James M. Cox (Democrat)
Eugene V. Debs (Socialist)
35th 1924 Calvin Coolidge (Republican) John W. Davis (Democrat)
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (Progressive)
36th 1928 Herbert Hoover (Republican) Al Smith (Democrat)
37th 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) Herbert Hoover (Republican)
Norman Thomas (Socialist)
38th 1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) Alf Landon (Republican)
William Lemke (Union)
39th 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) Wendell Willkie (Republican)
40th 1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) Thomas E. Dewey (Republican)
41st 1948* Harry S. Truman* (Democrat) Thomas E. Dewey (Republican)
Strom Thurmond (States’ Rights Democratic)
Henry A. Wallace (Progressive/Labor)
42nd 1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) Adlai Stevenson (Democrat)
43rd 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) Adlai Stevenson (Democrat)
44th 1960* John F. Kennedy* (Democrat) Richard Nixon (Republican)
Harry F. Byrd (Democrat)
45th 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) Barry Goldwater (Republican)
46th 1968* Richard Nixon* (Republican) Hubert Humphrey (Democrat)
George Wallace (American Independent)
47th 1972 Richard Nixon (Republican) George McGovern (Democrat)
John G. Schmitz (American)
48th 1976 Jimmy Carter (Democrat) Gerald Ford (Republican)
49th 1980 Ronald Reagan (Republican) Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
John B. Anderson (none)
Edward Clark (Libertarian)
50th 1984 Ronald Reagan (Republican) Walter Mondale (Democrat)
51st 1988 George H. W. Bush (Republican) Michael Dukakis (Democrat)
52nd 1992* Bill Clinton* (Democrat) George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Ross Perot (none)
53rd 1996* Bill Clinton* (Democrat) Bob Dole (Republican)
Ross Perot (Reform)
54th 2000*† George W. Bush* (Republican) Al Gore† (Democrat)
Ralph Nader (Green)
55th 2004 George W. Bush (Republican) John Kerry (Democrat)
56th 2008 To be determined John McCain (Republican)
Barack Obama (Democrat)
Bob Barr (Libertarian)
Ralph Nader (Independent)
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
Cynthia McKinney (Green)

* Winner received less than an absolute majority of the popular vote.
† Losing candidate received a plurality of the popular vote.
‡ Losing candidate received an absolute majority of the popular vote.

Voter turnout

Voter turnout in presidential elections has been on the decline in recent years, although the 2004 election showed a noticeable increase over the turnout in 1996 and 2000. While voter turnout has been decreasing, voter registration has been increasing. Registration rates varied from 65% to 70% of the voting age population from the 1960s to the 1980s, and due in part to greater government outreach programs, registration swelled to 75% in 1996 and 2000. Despite greater registration, however, turnout in general has not greatly improved.
Election Voting Age Population ¹ Turnout % Turnout of VAP
2004 215,694,000 122,295,345 56.69%
2000 205,815,000 105,586,274 51.31%
1996 196,511,000 96,456,345 49.08%
1992 189,529,000 104,405,155 55.09%
1988 182,778,000 91,594,693 50.11%
1984 174,466,000 92,652,680 53.11%
1980 164,597,000 86,515,221 52.56%
1976 152,309,190 81,555,789 53.55%
1972 140,776,000 77,718,554 55.21%
1968 120,328,186 73,199,998 60.83%
1964 114,090,000 70,644,592 60.92%
1960 109,159,000 68,838,204 63.06%

¹ The voting age population includes all persons age 18 and over as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, which necessarily includes a significant number of persons ineligible to vote, such as non-citizens, felons, and the mentally incompetent. The actual number of eligible voters is somewhat lower, and the number of registered voters is lower still. The number of non-citizens in 1994 was approximately 13 million, and in 1996, felons numbered around 1.3 million, so it can be estimated that around 7-10% of the voting age population is ineligible to vote.

Note that the large drop in percentage turnout between 1968 and 1972 can be attributed (at least in part) to the expansion of the franchise to 18 year olds (previously restricted to those 21 and older).

From The Wikipedia

The books are available here.

O’Kelly Chapel was located in Chatham County, NC

The Confederates attacked a still sleeping and unprepared Union camp. Kilpatrick escaped in his nightshirt to a nearby swamp before reorganizing his unit. The battle allowed the Confederate Infantry to escape Fayetteville with equipment across the Cape Fear River. More information can be found at this National Park Service Site and this historynet.com article

The property tax is perhaps the next most common that we’re familiar with. The idea here is that ones property is enumerated and they pay a certain amount on that property, sometimes a percentage, sometimes a fee per item. I remember in touring an older home somewhere once being told that they had a tax on windows and so the style at the time was for floor length windows that were actually doors and so they sidestepped the “window” tax by claiming they in fact had several doors in the room. (Looks like loopholes have been around as long as taxes…)

Property taxes could be on live stock, real estate, these days is on vehicles, but at one time could have been on slaves. Our ancestors had a variety of taxes to face just as we do.

The poll tax is somewhat misunderstood today. The earliest poll taxes had nothing to do with voting but were a per person tax. The word poll here was derived from an earlier english word meaning “head”. It was not uncommon to see households taxed per adult male. So, the tax rate would be based on the men older than age 18 in the household. It wasn’t until later years of the 19th and 20th centuries that term poll tax came to mean a tax at the voting booth. This idea was seen by many (most importantly by the courts) as a means of discouraging minority and poor voters and has been abolished.

So, I guess as we’ve finished our taxes we should at least take some comfort in the fact that we are not the first generation to be taxed, this unfortunately is a certainty of life that most of our ancestors faced as well.

Fortunately these things have been well documented and many of the old tax records do survive and can fill in a lot of the “in between” census year gaps. So, remember the old tax records as possibilities in your genealogy and family history research.

The first thing you should probably want to remember is that North Carolina’s main export as an early colony was pine tar. The tar from the pines of Eastern North Carolina was vital as tar pitch to waterproof sailing vessels. The process of getting the tar involved burning the pine logs until the oil seeped out… with some giving North Carolinians the nickname tarboilers. Because of the huge volume of North Carolinas tar export (*and turpentine) the state became known as the tar and turpentine state. This evolved into Tarheel and gained in popularity around the civil war. Although, initially the phrase was not a compliment, some references liken it to “white trash” in it’s use of that time.

Here are a couple ideas from the wikipedia article on Tar Heel on some anecdotes as to early use of the term…

River fording by General Cornwallis

According to this legend, the troops of British General Cornwallis during the American Revolutionary War were fording what is now known as the Tar River between Rocky Mount and Battleboro when they discovered that tar had been dumped into the stream to impede the crossing of British soldiers. When they finally got across the river, they found their feet completely black with tar. Thus, the soldiers observed that anyone who waded through North Carolina rivers would acquire “tar heels.”

Ability to hold ground

In the third volume of Walter Clark’s Histories of the Several Regiments from North Carolina in the Great War, the author explains that the nickname came from the North Carolina troops ability to hold their ground during a battle. According to the book, North Carolina troops held their ground during a battle in Virginia during the American Civil War while other supporting troops retreated. After the battle, supporting troops asked the victorious North Carolinians: “Any more tar down in the Old North State, boys?” and they replied: “No, not a bit; old Jeff’s bought it all up.” The supporting troops continued: “Is that so? What is he going to do with it?” The North Carolinian troops’ response: “He is going to put it on you’ns heels to make you stick better in the next fight.”

Reluctant secession

The State of North Carolina was one of the last states to secede from the United States of America (Tennessee was the last to do so) and as a result the state was nicknamed the “reluctant state” by others in the south. The joke circulating around at the beginning of the war went something like this: ” Got any tar?”- “No, Jeff Davis has bought it all.”- “What for?”- “To put on you fellow’s heels to make you stick.” As the war continued, many North Carolinian troops developed smart replies to this term of ridicule. Such as when the 4th Texas Infantry lost its flag at Sharpsburg. Passing by the 6th North Carolina a few days afterwards, the Texans called out, “Tar Heels!”, and the reply was, “Ifin you had had some tar on your heels, you would have brought your flag back from Sharpsburg.”

Robert E. Lee quotation

The book Grandfather Tales of North Carolina History (1901) states that:

During the late unhappy war between the States it [North Carolina] was sometimes called the “Tar-heel State,” because tar was made in the State, and because in battle the soldiers of North Carolina stuck to their bloody work as if they had tar on their heels, and when General Lee said, “God bless the Tar-heel boys,” they took the name.

A letter found in 1991 by North Carolina State Archivist David Olson somewhat supports this theory that Lee might have stated something similar to this. The letter dated from 1864 (in the North Carolina “Tar Heel Collection”) a Colonel Joseph Engelhard described the Battle of Ream’s Station in Virginia. In that letter he states: “It was a ‘Tar Heel’ fight, and … we got Gen’l Lee to thanking God, which you know means something brilliant.”

I have read it many times that from the civil war era North Carolina troops fought like they had tar on their heels and they stayed in the fight with a stubborn-ness that image brings to mind.

Again from the wikipedia article on Tar Heel here are some documented early uses of the term…

* The earliest surviving written use of the term can be found in the diary of 2nd Lieutenant William B. A. Lowrance who wrote the following on February 6, 1863 while in Pender County in the southeastern North Carolina “I know now what is meant by the Piney Woods of North Carolina and the idea occurs to me that it is no wonder we are called ‘Tar Heels.’”

* After the Battle of Murfreesboro in Tennessee in early January 1863, John S. Preston of Columbia, S.C., the commanding general, rode along the fighting line commending his troops. Before the 60th Regiment from North Carolina, Preston praised them for advancing farther than he had anticipated, concluding with: “This is your first battle of any consequence, I believe. Indeed, you Tar Heels have done well.”

* Sometime after North Carolina troops had fought particularly well, Gen. Robert E. Lee is said to have commented: “God bless the Tar Heel boys.” The exact occasion has not been noted.

* In a letter dated from 1864 (in the North Carolina “Tar Heel Collection”) a Colonel Joseph Engelhard described the Battle of Ream’s Station in Virginia. In that letter he states: “It was a ‘Tar Heel’ fight, and … we got Gen’l Lee to thanking God, which you know means something brilliant.”

* North Carolina State Governor Vance said in one of his speeches to the troops: “I do not know what to call you fellows. I cannot say fellow soldiers, because I am not a soldier, nor fellow citizens, because we do not live in this state; so I have concluded to call you fellows Tar Heels”.

* A piece of sheet music, Wearin’ of the Grey, identified as “Written by Tar Heel” and published in Baltimore in 1866, is probably the earliest printed use of Tar Heel.

* On New Year’s Day, 1868, Stephen Powers set out from Raleigh on a walking tour that in part would trace in reverse the march of Gen. William T. Sherman at the end of the Civil War. As a part of his report on North Carolina, Powers described the pine woods of the state and the making of turpentine. Having entered South Carolina, he recorded in his 1872 book, Afoot & Alone, that he spent the night “with a young man, whose family were away, leaving him all alone in a great mansion. He had been a cavalry sergeant, wore his hat on the side of his head, and had an exceedingly confidential manner.” “You see, sir, the Tar‑heels haven’t no sense to spare,” Powers quotes the sergeant as saying. “Down there in the pines the sun don’t more’n half bake their heads. We always had to show ‘em whar the Yankees was, or they’d charge to the rear, the wrong way, you see.”

* In Congress on February 10, 1875, an African American representative from South Carolina stated that some whites were “the class of men thrown up by the war, that rude class of men I mean, the ‘tar‑heels’ and the ‘sand‑hillers,’ and the ‘dirt eaters’ of the South — it is with that class we have all our trouble….”

* Tar Heel was used in the 1884 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which reported that the people who lived in the region of pine forests were “far superior to the tar heel, the nickname of the dwellers in barrens.”

* In Congress in 1878, Rep. David B. Vance, trying to persuade the government to pay one of his constituents, J.C. Clendenin, for building a road, described Clendenin in glowing phrases, concluding with: “He is an honest man… he is a tar‑heel.”

* In Pittsboro on December 11, 1879, the Chatham Record informed its readers that Jesse Turner had been named to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The new justice was described as “a younger brother of our respected townsman, David Turner, Esq., and we are pleased to know that a fellow tar‑heel is thought so much of in the state of his adoption.”

* John R. Hancock of Raleigh wrote Sen. Marion Butler on January 20, 1899, to commend him for his efforts to obtain pensions for Confederate veterans. This was an action, Hancock wrote, “we Tar Heels, or a large majority of us, do most heartily commend.”

* The New York Tribune stated on September 20, 1903, regarding some North Carolinians that “the men really like to work, which is all but incomprehensible to the true ‘tar heel.’”

* On August 26, 1912, The New York Evening Post identified Josephus Daniels and Thomas J. Pence as two Tar Heels holding important posts in Woodrow Wilson’s campaign.

So, there you have it. We’ve taken a label that was once derogatory and turned it into a mark of pride. Good luck Tar Heels!

I read recently that the Asheville Citizen-Times had launched a Historic Photos gallery. I’m looking at it in January and they have about 12 photos there. It looks as though it will be a monthly feature. In fact, they are requesting that if you have photos that you would like to send in you may do so.

I look through those pictures and see familiar landmarks and remember that what we see is not as it has always been. We see but a point in time along the path that is TIME. I hope to see more newspapers open up there collections like this.

In fact, it makes me want to go through and see what our best choice would be for sharing our old family photos online.

Now if we could just find software that would automatically name all those faces for us.

“for erecting a lighthouse on the head land of Cape Hatteras and a lighted beacon on Shell Castle Island, in the harbor of Ocracoke in the State of North Carolina.” This first lighthouse was completed one mile inland about 1802. It was 112 feet constructed of dark sandstone and visible for about 18 miles. It was considered the most important light along the coast, and the WORST. Improvements were made but in the late 1860s Congress allocated more funds ($167,000). When finished in 1871 it was the tallest brick lighthouse tower in the world. The light was 191 feet above sea level. In 1872 the old tower was demolished.

When it was completed the tower was about 1500 feet from the ocean, but on the Outer Banks, change is constant. By 1919 the water had encroached to within 300 feet of the tower. Attempts were made to arrest the progress of the sea, but by the mid 1930′s the ocean was within 100 feet of the tower. The tower was abandoned and turned over to the Parks Service.

In 1950 the lighthouse was reactivated as the problems with erosion seem to have stabilized and there wasn’t a great danger. For the next several decades there were several projects on and off again to protect the lighthouse from the encroachment of the sea. Finally, after much controversy the lighthouse was moved inland in 2000. Hopefully it will remain safe from the sea there for several generations.

These days, there is a webcam from the lighthouse tower. You can find more information at the National Park Service page dedicated to the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. You might also be interested in The Outer Banks Internet News Service

There is a Cape Hatteras Keepers’ Descendants Society as well… Surnames of interest include: Farrow, Austin, Fulcher, Barnett(e), Gillikin, Rollinson, O’Neil, Jennett(e), Casey, Quidley, Williams, and Simpson.