This Day in Goodlove History, January 2

This Day in Goodlove History, January 2

Jeff Goodlove email address: Jefferygoodlove@aol.com

Surnames associated with the name Goodlove have been spelled the following different ways; Cutliff, Cutloaf, Cutlofe, Cutloff, Cutlove, Cutlow, Godlib, Godlof, Godlop, Godlove, Goodfriend, Goodlove, Gotleb, Gotlib, Gotlibowicz, Gotlibs, Gotlieb, Gotlob, Gotlobe, Gotloeb, Gotthilf, Gottlieb, Gottliebova, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlow, Gutfrajnd, Gutleben, Gutlove

The Chronology of the Goodlove, Godlove, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlieb (Germany, Russia, Czech etc.), and Allied Families of Battaile, (France), Crawford (Scotland), Harrison (England), Jackson (Ireland), LeClere (France), Lefevre (France), McKinnon (Scotland), Plantagenets (England), Smith (England), Stephenson (England?), Vance (Ireland from Normandy), and Winch (England, traditionally Wales), including correspondence with George Rogers Clarke, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,and ancestors Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison.

The Goodlove Family History Website:

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/o/o/Jeffery-Goodlove/index.html

The Goodlove/Godlove/Gottlieb families and their connection to the Cohenim/Surname project:

• New Address! http://www.familytreedna.com/public/goodlove/default.aspx

• • Books written about our unique DNA include:

• “Abraham’s Children, Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People” by Jon Entine.
•
• “ DNA & Tradition, The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews” by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman, 2004.

“Jacob’s Legacy, A Genetic View of Jewish History” by David B. Goldstein, 2008.

Birthday: Lee A. Armstrong 54, Bryan C. Gunn, Janet K. Marugg 54, Mary E. Moore Waits 180

Anniversary: Priscilla Houston and Theophilus Mckinnon 189

January 2, 1012: Jewish mourners were attacked at a funeral in Egypt.[1]

1013: ABU-L-QASIM
Latin names: Abulcasis, Albucasis, Alsaharavius. Khalaf ibn Abbas al-Zahrawi, from Zahra, near Cordova, where he flourished and died c. 1013. The greatest Muslim surgeon. Physician to al-Hakam II (961 to 976). His great medical encyclopedia in 30 sections, al-Tasrif (Vade-mecum) contains interesting methods of preparing drugs by sublimation and distillation. but its most important part is the surgical, in three books, largely based upon Paulos Aegineta. Great importance attached to cauterization and styptics. Parts of the surgery are devoted to obstetrics and to the surgical treatment of the eyes, ears, and teeth. This work was illustrated with views of the surgical instruments. It was early translated into Latin (by Gherardo Cremonese), Provencal and Hebrew. Muslim prejudices against surgery stifled Abu-l-Qasim's fame in Islam, but in the Christian world his prestigue was soon immense.
Wustenfled: Geschichte der Arabischen Aerschen (p. 85, 1840). [2]

1013: Danes become masters of England as Ethelred flees to Normandy, Danes conquer England, Sweyn lands in England and is proclaimed king – Ethelred flees to Normandy, Dane Sweyn Forkbeard seizes England, new king, Aethelred flees to Normandy. [3]

1014: Basil II of Byzantine empire defeats Bulgarians, Rajendra I becomes ruler of Cholas who dominate India, Brian Boru, high king of all Ireland defeats Vikings, but is killed after victory, Brian Boru of Ireland defeats Vikings at Clontarf, but is slain, death of Samuel Czar of Bulgaria, death of Sweyn of Denmark and Sweden – succeeded by Canute – Ethelred returns to England, on Henry’s second Italian campaign he is crowned emperor in Rome, end of Norse rule in Ireland at battle at Clontarf, Western Bulgaria ceded to Byzantium, Basil II has Bulgarian army blinded, Japanese author Murasaki Shikibu dies, End of Sweyn Forkbeard King of Denmark – English recall Ethelred II as king and Canute retreats to Denmark, Sveyn Forkbeard dies, Canute (son)king of Denmark. Aethelred restored to the throne, Danes under Svein Forkbeard conquer England. [4]

January 2, 1710

A deed, made January 2, 1710, by Andrew Harrison and his wife Elizabeth Battaile, shows that she is the Elizabeth Battaile for whom he was guardian, and who later became his wife. In John Battaile's will, he bequeathed three hundred acres of land “I bought of Mr. Samp.

Darrell to her & her heirs forever”, to my daughter Elizabeth. In the deed to f9llow, made as above,’ Andrew Harrison and his wife Elizabeth Harrison—’ ‘one hundred and fifty acres . . . being part of a dividend of land formerly belonging to John Fossaker& Elizabeth, his wife, and sold by them unto Samson Darrell. . . . And by the said John Battaile given and bequeathed unto Elizabeth, his daughter, now. Wife of the said Andrew Harrison, party to these presents...“


DEED, MADE by ANDREW HARRISON AND HIS WIFE ELIZABETH BATTAILE, WHO WAS THE DAUGHTER OF JOHN BATTAILE. . . TO JOHN JONES.

STATE OF VIRGINIA *

County of Richmond

Deed Book No. 5, page 278.

THIS INDENTURE made~ the second day of January in the eighth year of our Sovereign Lady Anne, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Queen Defender of the faith, etc., and in l3ie sear of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ten, between Andrew Harrison, the younger, of the parish of St. Mary, in the County of Essex, within the Dominion of Virginia, planter, and Elizabeth, his wife, of the one part, and John Jones, the younger, of the parish of St. Mary in the County of Richmond within the Dominion of Virginia, aforesaid planter, of the second part. Witness that they the said Andrew Harrison and Elizabeth his said Wife as well, for and in consideration of the sum of five thousand pounds of good tobacco, and cash to them in hand, paid by the said John Jones, at and before the ensealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof and of every part thereof the said Andrew Harrison and Elizabeth his said wife do hereby confess and acknowledge themselves fully contented,., satisfied, and paid and thereof do acquit exonerate and forever discharge the said John Jones, his heirs executors and administrators and every of them by these presents . . . Have given, granted, bargained sold alyened enfeoffed and confirmed, and by these presents do fully, freely & clearly give, grant, bargain, sell, alyen enfeoffe and absolutely confirme unto the said John Jones and his heirs forever the aforesaid John Jones being in the actual and sole possession of all to

singular the premises by the delivery of Turfe and Twig, in and upon the same, the day, month and year, above mentioned for and in the name of all the land and appurtenances which is and are comprised and

contained in this deed, all that messuage tenement arid tract of Land con­taining by estimation in the whole, one hundred and fifty acres, scituate lying and being in ye Pish of St. Mary in the said County of Richmond, being part of a dividend of land formerly belonging to John Fossaker & Elizabeth his wife and sold by them unto Samson Darell of Glocester County, as may appear by deed of sale dated, the sixteenth day of April, one thousand six hundred ninety and two, and by the said Samson Darell sold unto John Battaile as appears by assignment thereof made on the back of the said deed bearing date, the seven and twentieth day of Sep­tember, in the year of our Lord, one thousand six hundred ninety and nine. And by the said John Battaile given and bequeathed unto Eliza­beth his Daughter, now Wife of the said Andrew Harris9n, party to these presents which said one hundred and fifty acres of land being moyety or half part of three hundred acres which is now bought and purchased by and between the said John Jones, party to these presents, and his brother George Jones, of and from the said Andrew Harrison and Elizabeth his said wife which said three hundred acres begineth as followeth:

IN WITNESS whereof the parties above-named have to these presents set their hands and seals the day month and year first mentioned—

Andrew Harrison (Seal)

sign ‘~

‘ Elizabeth X Harrison (Seal)

Sealed and delivered ~ —~

in the prence of—~

John Davis

John Dalton

E. Turbervile[5]

Jan 2, 1710
A deed, made January 2, 1710, by Andrew2 Harrison and his wife Elizabeth Battaile, shows that she is the Elizabeth Battaile for whom he was guardian, and who later became his wife.[6]

Wednesday January 2, 1754

George Washington, returning from a long and dangerous trip to the French Fort Le Boeuf, at Venango Creek, arrives back at Christopher Gist's plantation which is near present day Dunbar PA. His mission had been to deliver a message to the French asking them to remove their forces from the Ohio Territory. The French declined the request. [7]

January 2 1777

Colonel Donop with the Hessian grenadiers, the Jägers and light infantry were at Maidenhead. At noon Lord Cornwallis arrived with the whole army. In the evening the army set out towards Trenton.[8]

Colonel Edward Hand[9]

January 2, 1777: The next battle of that campaign came on January 2, when Lord Cornwallis, one of Howe’s generals, confronted Washington on Assunpink Creek near Trenton as night fell. The American position was precarious, but Washington had a few men keep the American campfires blazing during the night, while the patriot Army circled the enemy camp, attacked and defeated a British force at Princeton, and then retired before Cornwallis could bring his main army to the rescue. The American Army then went into winter quarters at Morristown[10], in a region protected by natural defenses of rocky hills. It was a location that threatened the enemy supply line if the British attempted any move toward Philadelphia…[11]

January 2, 1777

Richard Henry Lee to John Page

Dear Sir, Baltimore, 2d January, 1776 [i.e. 1777]
By the express lately sent from hence, I enclosed you both the printed accounts that we have had of the General's success against the enemy in New Jersey. Colonel Baylor, who brought us the General's letter, says that a party of Hessians more was brought in just as he came away, which makes the number of prisoners between one thousand and eleven hundred. Re-enforcements are daily going up, and in such numbers that the General intends to push the enemy, and we hope successfully, out of the Jerseys. The Hessian officers in general behaved infamously in this battle; and the British light-horse, with the Tories that were in town, scampered off at the beginning of the engagement. A few days before this attack, a flag was sent over to Trenton to this Colonel Rohl, now a prisoner: he received and treated the officer kindly; asked him if 'twas not reported that the Hessians plundered much, and that they were the only plunderers. The officer answering in the affirmative, Colonel Rohl replied that the English had address enough to have it so believed, but that it was notorious that the British officers and soldiers plundered more than the Hessians. Two British officers present denied it not. Soon after this rout, two thousand Hessians that were at Bordentown, below Trenton, on Delaware, marched off, having previously sent away one hundred wagons loaded with plunder, directly towards New York. If the Hessians are the smallest plunderers, what are the British? In truth, we hear that the people are enraged to a great degree at the brutal treatment they have met with.[12]

January 2, 1777

Thomas Nelson to Thomas Jefferson

Dear Jefferson Baltimore Jany 2d 1777 Colo. Zane delivered your Letters to me in this Town, and as I had it not in my power to execute what you desir'd, I gave them to him and desir'd he would negotiate the Bill and transact the other business, which he promis'd to do.
Our affairs have had a black appearance for the two last months, but they say the Devil is not so black as he is painted. We have at last turn'd the Tables upon those Scoundrels by surprize, as you will see by the enclos'd paper. It was very unfortunate for us, that Ewing and Cadwalader could not get over the River, for it is almost certain, that they would have surprized a large Detachment of Hessians at Mount Holly, and most probably they would have taken the greatest part of them. The Number of prisoners exceeds what the General makes them by 500. He is always very moderate. Could we but get a good Regular Army we should soon clear the Continent of these damn'd Invaders. They play the very Devil with the Girls and even old Women to satisfy their libidinus appetities. There is Scarcely a Virgin to be found in the part of the Country that they have pass'd thro' and yet the Jersies will not turn out. Rapes, Rapine, and Murder are not sufficient to rouse the resentment of these People. If they be not sufficient provocations I dispair of any thing working them up to opposition.[13]

January 2, 1781:

LOUISVILLE April 22d 1784.— Board of Commissioners met agreable to Act of Assembly,

intitled “An Act for Surveying & apportioning the Lands granted to the Illinois Regiment, & establishing a Town within the said Grant”

Present, Gen’ George R. Clark, John Montgomery Abraham Chap. line, John Bailey William Clark & Walker Daniel Geni Commis­sioners.

Ordered that Public notice be given by advertising at the different Court Houses in the District, That the Claimants of the Illinois Regiment bring in their Claims and lay them before the next Board, and that Robert Todd Gent be appointed to receive those for Fayette, Walker Daniel for Lincoln & Col~ Campbell, Col~ Montgomery, & Capt Bailey or either of them for Jefferson; to whom the Claimants are desired to give in their respective Claims, & the Deputies are reQuested to advertise their appointments & Office, and make report to the next meeting.

Ordered that a Board meet on the first Monday in August

next or sooner if it shall be judged necessary by a Majority of the Commissioners, & if it shall be so adjudged, a meeting shall be ad­vertised by the Senior Commissioner Present — Ordered that William Clark be appointed Principal Surveyor,

& be intitled to the same Fees as are by Law given to the Surveyors of the Continental & State lines, deducting however the sixth that is there paid to the College. The said Surveyor is hereby directed to proceed forthwith to run the inclusive lines, & to employ one or more Hunters to explore the Country before him & to find the Men in provisions &c. The Surveyor is directed to Survey the Lands on the Northwest Side of the Ohio opposite to the Falls, run­ning up the River & back for Quantity, so as to take in the best Land that the Conditions of the Grant will admit of.

WALKER DANIEL

GEO. R CLARK

JOHN MONTGOMERY

Signed

JOHN BAILEYS

ABRAHAM CHAPLINE

W. CLARK

Copy of the proceedings of the Commrs for adjusting the claims of the Officers & Soldiers of the Illinois Regiment to the Lands given them under a resolution of January 2, 1781 agreable to Act of Assembly passed October Session 1783.

January 2, 1781:

LouisviLLE August 2, 1784. Commr

met according to adjournment; Present, Walker Daniel, Geo. R. Clark, John Montgomery, John Bailey, Robert Todd & William Clark, Gen Comm’

Ordered that the Board adjourn ‘till tomorrow morning. Sign’d W. DANIEL Ch~

August 3rd The Board met according to adjournment; Present the same Members as yestarday, & also Abraham Chapline Gente

On motion, the Board came to the following Resolution; That all Officers & Soldiers who marched and continued in service till the Reduction of the British Posts on the North West side of yc Ohio, that all who engaged, & enlisted in the Illinois Regiment after­wards & served during the War, or three Years, are intitled to a share of the Grant under the Resolution & Act of Assembly. But

that those soldiers who have enlisted in the said Regmt since the 2d day of January (January 2) 1781. either for three Years or during the War are not entitled, as there seems to be no provision made under the Resolution for those who should thereafter be incorporated in the said Regiment. That the Officers of the Regmt are intitled to a Share of the Land in proportion to the Commissions they respectively held on the s~’ 2d day of January 1781, & not in proportion to the Commissions they have since held in consequence of Promotions; and that therefore, Officers Commissioned since that Period are not intitled at all; And that those Soldiers who inlisted to serve 12 Months after their arrival at Kaskaskias[14] agreeable to an Act of Assembly of the fall Session 1778 for the protection & defence of the Illinois Country who did not reinhist in the Regiment are not in­cluded in said Resolution. That those Officers who were Commis­sioned under s~’ act & Resigned before the expiration of the 12 Months are not intitled, but that those who continued during the year, & then retired not having a Command, are intitled.

August 4th; The same Members as Yesterday. The

Adj’

following claims were taken up & allowed, & disallow’d as they

are marked, To wit,

Geo. R. Clark, Brig. Gen’ John Williams Capt

John Montgomery, Lt Col. Geo. Walls, not allow’d,

Joseph Bowman MajT Robert Todd Capt

Thou Quirke Majr Leone’ Helm Capt

Walker Daniel Maj’ Isaac Taylor, same

Jesse Evans (not allow’d) Lewis Gagnia, Soldier

Ja~ Shelby, Capt John Lemon D~

John Bailey, Capt (Tho~ Gaskins D~

Richard Brashear, Capt Moses Lunsford D~

Robert George Capt W”~ Smith — D°

Richard McCarty Capt Mich. Millar (not aild)

Abraham Kellar Capt Robert Witt, Soldr

Edward Worthington Capt Nich. Burk D°

Harrod Capt W”1 Bush D~

Wm Lynn, (not allowed) 1~’Iicajah Mafield D°

allowed on reconsidering July

17 1785

alP}

Isaac Ruddle (not allwd)

Levi Todd, Lieutenant

James Davies

John Swan Lt

Henry Floyd Lt

Richard Harrison V

James Robertson Lt

Abraham Chapline V

John Girault V

Michael Perrault Lt

Joseph Calvit Lt

James Montgomery V

Isaac Bowman Lt

Jarret Williams Lt

Richard Clark Lt

William Clark Lt

Thou Wilson Lt

Valentine T. Dalton, Lt

Jacob Vanmeter Ensign

Laurence Slaughter Ensign

Isaac Kellar, Serjt

John Rogers Capt

James Meriwether Lt

John Thruston, Cornet

John Joines, Soldier

James Baxter Soldr

John Johnston Do

Wm Bell D°

Richard Lovell D°

Sam. Watkins Do

Edwd Mauray Soldr

James Jarratt (not all~)

Francis Hardin, same

Larkin Balenger D~

W” Kerr D°

Henry Dewitt Serjt

Wm Crump D~

Tho’ Hooper D~

John Montgomery D°

Francis McDermit D~

Edw. Parker Serjt

Peter Shepperd, Soldier

Wm Thompson D~

George Shepperd D°

Randall White D°

Geo. Lunsford D°

Mason Lunsford D°

Andrew Clark D°

Wm Whitehead D~

Robt Whitehead D~

Boston Damewood (not allow’d)



‘Wm Crossley, (same)

Peter Newton Soldr

Nich. Tuttle (not alP’)

John Grimes Soldr

Francis Grolet (not alP’)

Francis Grolet jr. same

Hugh Logan, same

John Dodge, same

Israel Dodge, same

John Vaughan, Serjt

Bev. Trent — D°

John Tewell (not alP’)

Levi Theel, Soldier

Francis Godfrey D~

Mat. Brock (not all”)

Val. T. Dalton not as an adjutant

James Sherlock, not all”

Jn° Doherty, same

Charles McLocklin D~

Jesse Piner, Soldier

James Brown Serjt

John Williams Serjt

Th& Moore Soldr

John Moore D~

Wm Tyler D°

Jos. Lynes D”

John Green D~

W’~ Myres D~

John Paul D~

John Hughes D°

Isaac Vanmeter Do

Andrew House D~

Ebenezer Osbourne D~

Thou Batten D0

Stephen Frost D~

Van: Swearingen Do

John Linen D°

Sam Blackford D~

Laten White D~

Abraham Luzader D°

W” Ray D~

Jas Harris Do

Herman Consuly Do

John Duff D°

James Curry D~

Steph: Stephens D~

Eben’~ Bowen, not al1~

Wm Swann Soldr

Simon Kenton D°

John Saunders D°

Geo Clark D~

W”' Whitley Do

David Glenn Do

Silas Harlin D°

John Severns D°

Dan. Durst, not allow’d

W”’ Rubey, Serjt

Pat. Doran, Soldr

W”' Greathouse D°

Charles Bitterback D~

Robt Patterson Serjt

James January Soldr

James McNut D~

Geo. Grey D~

Elisha Bethey D~

Rich’ Rue, not all”

Arthur Lindsay Soldr

Sam. McMulljn D~

Edward Wilson D°

Sam Stroud Serjt

Barney Waters Soldr

Henry Funk D~

Jacob Coger D~

Peter Coger D~

James Bentley D°

John Bently D°

Edmond Fear d~

Wm Slack d°

Asael Davies d~

John Boyles d~

Jos: Ramsay d°

Thos Clifton d~

Richtl Lutterell d~

\V Crosbey d~

Jas Wood d°

James Holmes d~

Joseph Anderson d~

Moses Camper d~

Tilman Camper d~

James Monrow d~

Charles Jones d~

Beflj Kendall d°

Ebenezer Severns D~

W”’ Oreer D°

James Irby Serjt

Jesse Oreer Soldt

Sam Humphries d°

Ebenr Mead, not alP’

Dom: Flanagan Soldr

Jonas Manifee d°

John Tally d°

Dan. Tally, not all~

Zecklege Soldt

Jas. Kincade not al”

John Sartine Soldt

Henry French, not aP’

Peter Locklin, same

John McGuire, same

John Lesley same

Lough Brown same

Hugh Logan, same

David Bailey Soldt

Sam Butcher not al”

Isaac Henry Soldr

Henry Hatton Not aP

John Isaacs Soldt

Isaac Farris Soldr

John Henry d~

Hugh Henry d°

David Henry d°

Edward Bulger d°

Abraham James d°

Henry Prather d°

Jacob Spears d°

Abr Taylor d°

Sam Bell, d°

Moses Nelson, not al~

Edward Taylor same

James Whitecotton Soldr

Rob’ Garrott d~

John Oreer Serjt

Dan. Oreer Soldr

John Reed not allowed

Charles Morgan, same

Wm Rubey jr Soldt

Corn: Ruddle d

Pleast Lockert d

Josiah Phelps d

Wm Beckley d

Wm B. Smith, not all~

James Finn Soldt

William Chapman d

David Rogers, not al

Sam. Byrd same

James Biggar Soldr

James McKinn, not aP’

Gasper Butcher, same

Steph: Ray same

Turner Oliver, same

Dan Whitten same

Capt Rogers has the list of his Serjt & Sold & will give a Copy

ç Soldiers, during the War, not intitled to a double share



Augt the 6th —

Jos: Hunter’s pet° rejected



Cornelius Copland Soldier



William Shannon’s pet9

rejected

Benj Lynn, not all~

Sam Moore same

Henry Honaker Soldr[15]

January 2, 1782: The Tolerance Edict (Toleranzpatent) guaranteeing existing rights and obligation of the Jewish population, was enacted by Joseph II of Austria, the son of Maria Theresa. Joseph II was influenced by Wilhelm von Dohn, a friend of Mendelssohn's and beginning with this edict, followed a generally enlightened attitude toward the Jews. The Edict (with the final edict less liberal then the original), received mixed reviews by Jewish leaders including Ezekiel Landau and Moss Mendelssohn. They realized that the real intention of the edict was not the emancipation of the Jews but their assimilation. As further proof the new freedoms being granted to the Jews of Austria, Emperor Joseph II "permitted Jewish wholesale merchants, notables and their sons to wear swords" and "insisted that Christians should behave in a friendly matter towards Jews."[16]



January 2, 1782 Edict of Tolerance

The Edict of Tolerance of 1781

The 1782 Edict of Tolerance was a religious reform of Joseph II during the time he was emperor of the Habsburg Monarchy as part of his policy of Josephinism, a series of drastic reforms to remodel Austria in the form of the ideal Enlightened state. Joseph II's enlightened despotism included the Patent of Toleration, enacted in 1781, and the Edict of Tolerance in 1782.[1] The Patent of Toleration granted religious freedom to the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Greek Orthodox,[2] but it wasn't until the 1782 Edict of Tolerance that Joseph II extended religious freedom to the Jewish population.

Austria has had a long history on the subject of religious tolerance. This can be traced back to the 16th century when Martin Luther’s writings first appeared in the Habsburg monarchy in Austria. The appearance of Luther’s writings was threatening since they encouraged religious dissent of the Catholic faith, and its ecclesiastical system.[3] Joseph II was also inspired by economic motives,[4] as the emigration of the Protestant population out of Austria would have eventually lead up to an economic slump.

Tolerance church in Vysoká (Bohemia) - without entrance from the street and without tower

1781 Patent of Toleration

The 1781 Patent of Toleration allowed certain rights and recognized the existence of non-Catholic religions in Austria. The Edict of Toleration allowed Protestants from other countries where religious tolerance was not enforced to immigrate to Austria and hold jobs such as pharmacists, carpenters and blacksmiths.[5] The tolerated religions, however, were allowed to have congregations no larger than 100 people in a private home. If a certain sect had more than 100 families living in an area, they were allowed to build a church only if the church did not have a direct entrance from the street and had no visible appearance of being a church. When it came to the case of mixed marriages, there were also laws that had to be followed: if a Catholic man had children with a non-Catholic woman, all the children would be raised Catholic. In the case of a Catholic woman with a non-Catholic man, the girls would be raised Catholic while the boys would be raised non-Catholic.[2]

Scrutiny from Catholic officials occurred in places, like Bohemia, where the officials attempted to preserve religious unity. In order to do this they had printed out all the pamphlets that described this edict in German. The population whom this would affect, however, generally couldn't speak or read German.[6]

Jewish community before the Edict

Long before the Jews had been granted religious freedom by Joseph II, they were treated rather harshly by his mother, Maria Theresa and had been ostracized by others. During the Middle Ages, Austrian Jews had lived apart from the Orthodox communities and had not been allowed by the government to own immovable property. Although this was not the case for the more affluent Jews, those who were wealthy and were able to establish factories were recipients of preferential treatment by Maria Theresa, but otherwise there were restrictions on the rest of the Jewish population. Joseph II was the first one who made an attempt to eliminate these attitudes and sanctions that were toward the majority of the Jewish population.[citation needed]

1782 Edict of Tolerance

The 1782 Edict of Tolerance was issued on January 2, 1782. The Edict was initially put into effect in lower Austria. The prologue to the resolution stated “This policy paper aims at making the Jewish population useful to the state."[7] This second edict allowed Jewish children to attend schools and universities. It allowed adults to engage in jobs such as being merchants or to open factories. It also eliminated previous restrictions, which had forced the Jews to wear gold stars or to pay a tax that was only levied on the Jews and cattle.[8] According to the edict, however, the Jewish languages, the written language Hebrew and the spoken language Yiddish, were to be replaced by the national language of the country. Official documents and school textbooks could not be printed in Hebrew.[9][17][18]

Haskalah in Germany

The giant protagonist of the Haskalah in Germany was without doubt Moses Mendelsohn, Mendelsohn was so central and important in the Jewish Haskalah precisely because he was also accepted as a German philosopher of the Enlightenment and served as a model for enlightened thinking as promoted by Gotthold Lessing in his "Nathan the Wise." By succeeding in German society, Mendelsohn seemed to prove that the model "worked" - that it was possible to be BOTH a Jew and a modern German enlightenment philosopher and nationalist. The German Haskalah movement was the first such movement and provided the model and inspiration for those that would come after.

European Society, Politics and Haskalah

The Haskalah was stimulated by several related trends and events in Europe. The first was the philosophical and social Enlightenment movement, which was centered on the deistic and skeptical philosophy of the encyclopedists and the attack on religion. The second was the rise of the centralized nationalist secular state, which led on the one hand to political emancipation of the Jews in some countries, but at the same time, on the other hand, to programs of more or less forced assimilation through education.

The history of the Edict of Tolerance (Toleranzpatent) of the Holy Roman (Hapsburg) Emperor Joseph II illustrates the dual nature of "emancipation" of the Jews as it was promulgated in much of Europe. The original edict of 1781 extended religious freedom to all Christian sects, but not to Jews. In 1782, the edict was extended to include Jews, on certain very restrictive conditions. Though Jews would now be allowed to live in Vienna and Austria, and to engage in various crafts that were previously forbidden to Jews under the odious rule of Maria Theresa, they were forced to study in non-Jewish studies and to found schools for that purpose or to study in general schools. Jewish schools had to be under government supervision. Even these laws found only a reluctant acceptance in the various states of the empire, because various guilds protested against competition from Jews. This policy, which amounted in some cases to compulsory cultural genocide, was replicated in subsequent decrees of various German states, in Eastern Europe and in the Russian Tsarist regime in the 19th century.

The French Revolution provided an additional impetus to the Haskalah movement. The progress of Napoleon spread the doctrines of enlightenment throughout Europe, and the emancipation of the Jews provided the basis for Jewish integration into European societies. Once again however, it was integration as individuals and not as a group or ethnic entity that was granted to Jews, even if they were allowed their individual liberty of conscience and culture.

What the Haskalah Negated

The Haskalah, in addition to negating ghetto dress and mannerisms, negated the Talmud, Yiddish and Messianism, all central characteristics of Jewish communal life in the European Middle Ages though not necessarily essential parts of Judaism. As such, it evoked a lot of resistance from those for whom these were important causes. Zionism was later to adopt all of these positions, and to inherit the same enmity from advocates of Talmudic and Messianic Judaism as well as "Yiddishists."

Haskalah and the Talmud

The Talmud had been the cornerstone of Jewish life and education for over a thousand years. The identification of the Talmud with Judaism and its centrality to Judaism were sealed by the persistent persecution of the Jews by Christian authorities in Europe, based on absurd notions that the purpose of the Talmud was to conceal slanders against the Christian religion and plots against Christian rule (see Jew Hate for a brief summary). Talmudic law and Talmudic studies and glosses on the Talmud had virtually monopolized Jewish education and philosophy, to the exclusion of all other studies including the Hebrew language and the Bible itself. The Torah, the five books of Moses, could only be approached through the Talmud. To prevent "Hellenization" edicts were passed forbidding the study of secular philosophy and any other secular learning. Talmud study became the bulwark of Jewish religious reaction, as well as an object of suspicion in the new "enlightenment" legislation.

The leaders of the German Haskalah, Moses Mendelsohn and Naphtali Herz Wessely, the pioneer of Haskalah education, did not openly challenge the sanctity and the authority of the Oral Law. However, they tried to demote the study of Talmud from its supreme position in Jewish education. There was no alternative for those who wanted introduce additional studies, because the Talmudists claimed and enforced a monopoly. Mendelssohn, wrote to Naphtali Herz Homberg, a leader of the enlightenment in Galicia, stressing the importance of deeds and the study of the Bible for Judaism, without mentioning the Talmud. Wessely stated: "We were not all created to become talmudists." David Friedlaender, another Haskalah leader, rejoiced at the decline of Yeshivot. [19]

January 2, 1788

Georgia becomes the fourth state to ratify the Constitution.[20]

Delaware, on December 7, 1787, became the first State to ratify the new Constitution, with its vote being unanimous. Pennsylvania ratified on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23 (66.67%). New Jersey ratified on December 19, 1787, and Georgia on January 2, 1788, both with unanimous votes. The requirement of ratification by nine states, set by Article Seven of the Constitution, was met when New Hampshire voted to ratify, on June 21, 1788.

In New York, fully two thirds of the convention delegates were at first opposed to the Constitution. Hamilton led the Federalist campaign, which included the fast-paced appearance of the Federalist Papers in New York newspapers. An attempt to attach conditions to ratification almost succeeded, but on July 26, 1788, New York ratified, with a recommendation that a bill of rights be appended. The vote was close – yeas 30 (52.6%), nays 27 – due largely to Hamilton's forensic abilities and his reaching a few key compromises with moderate anti-Federalists led by Melancton Smith.[a] The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

Historical influences

Fundamental law

Several ideas in the Constitution were new. These were associated with the combination of consolidated government along with federal relationships with constituent states.

Enlightenment and Rule of law

John Locke
Two Treatises of Government
life, liberty and property

The due process clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law stretching back to Magna Carta (1215).[citation needed] The document established the principle that the Crown's powers could be limited. The "law of the land" was the King in Parliament of Lords and Commons. The once sovereign King was to be bound by law. Magna Carta as "sacred text" would become a foundation of English liberty against arbitrary power wielded by a tyrant.

Both the influence of Edward Coke and William Blackstone were evident at the Convention. In his Institutes of the Laws of England, Edward Coke interpreted Magna Carta protections and rights to apply not just to nobles, but to all British subjects of the Crown equally. Coke extended this principle overseas to colonists. In writing the Virginia Charter of 1606, he enabled the King in Parliament to give those to be born in the colonies all rights and liberties as though they were born in England. William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" were the most influential books on law in the new republic among both lawyers generally and judges.

The most important influence from the European continent was from Enlightenment thinkers John Locke and Montesquieu.

British political philosopher John Locke following the Glorious Revolution was a major influence expanding on the contract theory of government advanced by Thomas Hobbes. Locke advanced the principle of consent of the governed in his "Two Treatises of Government". Government's duty in a social contract with the sovereign people was to serve them by protecting their rights. These basic rights of English and by extension all humanity, were life, liberty and property.

Montesquieu, emphasized the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny (this in itself reflects the influence of Polybius's 2nd century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic). In his "The Spirit of the Laws", Montesquieu argues that the separation of state powers should be by its service to the people's liberty: legislative, executive and judicial.

Division of power in a republic was informed by the British experience with mixed government, as well as study of republics ancient and modern. A substantial body of thought had been developed from the literature of republicanism in the United States, including work by John Adams. The experiences among the thirteen states after 1776 was remarkably different among those which had been charter, proprietary newly created royal colonies.

Native Americans

The Iroquois nations' political confederacy and democratic government under the Great Law of Peace have been credited as influences on the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.[13] Relations had long been close, as from the beginning the colonial English needed allies against New France. Prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson in colonial Virginia and Benjamin Franklin in colonial Pennsylvania, two colonies whose territorial claims extended into Iroquois territory, were involved with leaders of the New York-based Iroquois Confederacy.[14]

In the 1750s at the Albany Congress, Franklin called for "some kind of union" of English colonies to effectively deal with Amerindian tribes.[15] John Rutledge (SC) quoted Iroquoian law to the Constitutional Convention, "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..." [16]

The Iroquois experience with confederacy was both a model and a cautionary tale. Their "Grand Council" had no coercive control over the constituent members, and decentralization of authority and power had frequently plagued the Six Nations since the coming of the Europeans. The governance adopted by the Iroquois suffered from "too much democracy" and the long term independence of the Iroquois confederation suffered from intrigues within each Iroquois nation.[17]

The 1787 United States had similar problems, with individual states making separate agreements with European and Amerindian nations apart from the Continental Congress. Without the Convention's proposed central government, the framer's feared that the fate of the confederated Articles' United States would be the same as the Iroquois Confederacy.

Bills of rights before

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[18] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.[21]

January 2, 1830: Two treaties were negotiated simultaneously at Prairie du Chien in the summer of 1829, both signed by General John McNeil, Colonel Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater for the United States. Both treaties were proclaimed on January 2, 1830.

Land ceded to the U.S. at Prairie du Chien in 1829 by the Three Fires Confederacy (in yellow) and the Winnebago (Ho-Chunk) tribe (in orange).

The first of these, the second Treaty of Prairie du Chien, concluded on July 29, 1829, was between the United States and representatives of the Council of Three Fires (also known as the "United Nations of Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi Indians"). By this treaty, the tribes ceded to the United States an area in present-day northwestern Illinois and southwestern Wisconsin, as well as the areas currently occupied by the cities of Wilmette and Evanston. This treaty established reservation areas in western Illinois for the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation. Later the US removed them further west to Kansas. This treaty also preserved the rights of the Council of Three Fires to hunt in the ceded territory. The U.S. also received many acres of timber.

The second of these, the third Treaty of Prairie du Chien, concluded on August 1, 1829, was made between the United States and representatives of the Winnebago tribe. They also ceded land in northwestern Illinois and southwestern Wisconsin.[22]

Sat. January 2, 1864

Helped borrows butcher. A very cold day[23]

January 2, 1901: On this date in 1901, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt received his 1st degree in Matinecock Lodge #806, Oyster Bay, New York.[24]

January 2, 1997: THE SEARCH BEGINS

Dr. Skorecki made contact with Professor Michael Hammer, of the University of Arizona, a leading researcher in molecular genetics and a pioneer in Y chromosome research. Professor Hammer uses DNA analysis to study the history of populations, their origins and migrations. His previous research included work on the origins of the Native American Indians and the development of the Japanese people.

A study was undertaken to test the hypothesis. If there were a common ancestor, the Cohanim should have common genetic markers at a higher frequency than the general Jewish population.

In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal, Nature (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel, England and North America were asked to identify whether they were a Cohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background.

The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Cohanim and non-Cohanim were indeed significant. A particular marker, (YAP-) was detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohanim, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohanim.

FURTHER CONFIRMATION

In a second study, Dr. Skorecki and associates gathered more DNA samples and expanded their selection of Y chromosome markers. Solidifying their hypothesis of the Cohens' common ancestor, they found that a particular array of six chromosomal markers was found in 97 of the 106 Cohens tested. This collection of markers has come to be known as the Cohen Modal Hapoltype (CMH) -- the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these findings happening at random is greater than one in 10,000.

The finding of a common set of genetic markers in both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim worldwide clearly indicates an origin pre-dating the separate development of the two communities around 1000 CE. Date calculation based on the variation of the mutations among Cohanim today yields a time frame of 106 generations from the ancestral founder of the line, some 3,300 years -- the approximate time of the Exodus from Egypt, the lifetime of Aaron HaCohen.

Date calculations based on the mutations yield a time frame for the Cohen line of some 3,300 years!

Professor Hammer was recently in Israel for the Jewish Genome Conference. He confirmed that his findings are consistent -- over 80 percent of self-identified Cohanim have a common set of markers.

The finding that less than one-third of the non-Cohen Jews who were tested possess these markers is not surprising to the geneticists. Jewishness is not defined genetically. Other Y-chromosomes can enter the Jewish gene pool through conversion or through a non-Jewish father. Jewish status is determined by the mother. Tribe membership follows the father's line.

AMAZING STATISTICS

Calculations based on the high rate of genetic similarity of today's Cohanim resulted in the highest "paternity-certainty" rate ever recorded in population genetics studies -- a scientific testimony to family faithfulness.

Stated Dr. David Goldstein of Oxford University:

"For more than 90 percent of the Cohens to share the same genetic markers after such a period of time is a testament to the devotion of the wives of the Cohens over the years. Even a low rate of infidelity would have dramatically lowered the percentage."

[Science News, October 3, 1998]

Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical original can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied.

This genetic research has clearly refuted the libel that the Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar tribe -- a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence.

OTHER SURPRISING FINDINGS

In their second published paper in Nature (July 9, 1998) the researchers included an unexpected finding. Those Jews in the study who identified themselves as Levites did not show a common set of markers as did the Cohanim. The Levites clustered in three groupings, one of them the CMH. According to tradition, the Levites should also show a genetic signature from a common paternal patrilineal ancestor. The researchers are now focusing effort on the study of Levites' genetic make up to learn more about their history in the Diaspora.

Using the CMH as a DNA signature of the ancient Hebrews, researchers are pursuing a hunt for Jewish genes around the world.

This research could have ramifications in the search for the Biblical Ten Lost Tribes

This could have ramifications in the search for the Biblical Ten Lost Tribes.

Using the genetic markers of the Cohanim as a yardstick, these genetic archaeologists are using DNA research to discover historical links to the Jewish people.

The researchers' policy is that the research is not a test of individuals, but an examination of the extended family. Having the CMH is not a proof of one's being a Cohen, for the mother's side is also significant in determining one's Cohen status. At present, there are no ramifications in Jewish law due to this discovery. No one is certified nor disqualified because of their Y chromosome markers.

The research has shown a clear genetic relationship amongst Cohanim and their direct lineage from a common ancestor. The research findings support the Torah statements that the line of Aaron will last throughout history:

"... and they shall have the Priesthood as a statute forever, and you shall consecrate Aaron and his sons." [Exodus 29:9]

"... it shall be for them an appointment to an everlasting Priesthood throughout their generations." [Exodus 40:15]

"And it shall be to him and to his descendants after him a covenant of everlasting Priesthood." [Numbers 25:13]

That our Torah tradition is supported by these findings is an inspiration for many that God surely keeps His promises. May we soon see the Cohanim restored to their service, Levites on their Temple platform and Israelites at their places.

If you are a Cohen or Levi interested in participating in the DNA research and/or receiving further information please contact:

Center For Cohanim,

3 Rehov HaMekubalim,

Old City, Jerusalem, Israel

Phone/Fax: (02) 628-9243

Email: ymkleiman@hotmail.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to Professor Edward Simon, microbiologist at Purdue University, lecturer and board member of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, for his expert input.[25]

3,300 years ago…Cohen Gene: Y-Chromosomal Aaron

Cohen Modal Haplotype is the Genetic Signature of the Jewish Priestly Family

Kimberly Sharpe, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Oct 28, 2009 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."

Traditions and beliefs dictate that to be a true Jew you must be descended matrilineally (from the mother). This is truly the only way to be Jewish ethnically. For thousands of years the Jewish race has traced their lineage back using this system. However, if you are a Kohanim (priest) you traditionally track your lineage back paternally (from the father). This has always been an oddity in the Jewish world but the accepted belief based upon God's word to the first High Priest, Aaron. God proclaimed that all priests would be descended directly from Aaron's line. For 3,300 years Jews have believed that you must be a direct descendant of Aaron to be considered of the priesthood. But can science prove this promise from God to be true? The answer is - yes.

Today there are seven million Jews worldwide. Of those seven million five percent of the men claim to be Kohanim. This is roughly 350,000 Jews worldwide. This line is a direct paternal descent of the line of Aaron, who God proclaimed to be the first High Priest of the Jewish race. God promised Aaron that all of his sons and their sons would be priests and live on throughout the ages despite the hardships that the Jewish race would face such as ongoing genocide and being dispersed throughout the world in the last 3,300 years.

Dr. Karl Skorecki is a nephrologist and a top-level researcher at the University of Toronto and the Rambam-Technion Medical Center in Haifa, Israel. He has been largely involved in many breakthroughs in molecular genetics which are revolutionizing medicine and the study of the life-sciences today. He is well respected around the world in his field as a leading researcher and considered to truly be one of the best. Dr. Skorecki had a special interest in providing proof that the Kohanim (priestly) tradition is true because his family has maintained that the males are true Kohanim in his family line for thousands of years. He has a Ashkenazi Jewish background but the family also has the tradition of being Kohen.

After much consideration Dr. Skorecki believed that the Jews who adhere to tradition and the handful that proclaim themselves to be true Kohen must have a common paternal ancestor that could be traced through the use of genetics. Could the genetic marker be traceable after over 3,000 years back to the single man Aaron in the Sinai desert? Dr. Skorecki believed that it could be traced and he set out to prove his theory true.

Genetic markers are variations in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA, known as a mutation. Normally when a mutation occurs within a gene it will cause a malfunction in the genetic makeup to occur or a disease to manifest. Over time the genetic marker is completely lost due to selection in succeeding generations. However, rarely mutations persist and are located in the non coding regions of DNA. This is what Dr. Skorecki and his researchers would have to locate in order to prove that the Kohanim tradition was valid and real.

The Y chromosome is what determines being a male. This chromosome consists entirely of non-coding DNA. This is what causes it to accumulate mutations over a period of time. The Y chromosome is passed from father to son without any recombination. This makes the genetic information on a Y chromosome in your son the same as his male ancestors going back thousands of years. Often a very rare mutation will occur in the hereditary line, however. This mutation is called a haplotype and can serve as a true and provable genetic signature of a mans true male ancestry. This is what makes him who he is and what sets him apart from the rest of the world giving him his own unique lineage.

Dr. Skorecki teamed up with world re-known researcher Professor Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona. Dr. Hammer is one of the leading world researchers in molecular genetics. He was one of the first true pioneers in the Y chromosome research. He uses DNA analysis to study the history of the population, the migrations of the world people, and the true origins of each race. He has studied the Native American Indians and the Japanese people which have gained him worldwide recognition as one of the best researchers in the field.

In the first study Dr. Skorecki and Dr. Hammer took 188 Jewish participants from England, North America, and Israel. DNA was extracted from the cheek cells of each participant. The participants were each asked to state if they were Kohen, Levi or Israelite. They were also were asked to provide a detailed family history.

When the results were calculated they were staggering. The analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Kohanim and non-Kohanim showed exact results. These findings showed a particular marker called YAP- which was detected in 98.5 percent of the participants who claimed Kohanim lineage.

Dr. Skorecki and Dr. Hammer gathered their research team to perform a second study. During this study they gathered even more DNA samples. This study revealed a particular array of six chromosomal markers which were found in 97 of the 106 Kohens tested. This collection was named Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) which is the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these findings ever randomly happening is a very rare one in 10,000.

From these findings exact date calculations of the mutations can be mapped. Based on the variations in the Kohanim line today the time frame that results indicated that a 106 generations have passed since the founding line. This is a finding of 3,300 years which is the approximate time of the Exodus of the Jewish People led by Moses, brother of Aaron, from Egypt to Israel. This is when tradition and the Bible dictates that the priesthood first began with Aaron and God promised that Aaron's descendants would be the Priests of the Jewish people.

This finding is outstanding in its very significance because it proves the Biblical validity of the Exodus and the life of both Aaron and Moses. This shows that the oral tradition of the Jewish people is accurate and that the historical findings of the Bible are accurate.

Dr. Hammer confirms that his findings are consistent and that over 80 percent of self-identified Kohanim have a common set of markers. These studies have been staggeringly significant in the world of genetic research. The studies and calculations done by Dr. Hammer and Dr. Skorecki resulted in the highest paternity certainty rate ever recorded in any population genetic study ever done.

According to the Torah the line of Aaron will last throughout history God proclaimed and research findings have supported this to a shocking degree. God promised Aaron that his line would remain the priesthood of the Jewish people and this scientific evidence proves that God always keeps His promises.

To me these findings are significant because they provide proof of the existence of God and the historical significance of the Bible through valid scientific evidence that truly cannot be disputed.

Sources:

DNA and Traditions: The Genetic Link To The Ancient Hebrews By Yaakov Kleiman

http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19980919cohen3.asp

http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tradition.htm

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/cohanim-dna-connection/[26]

The DNA Evidence for Israelite Ancestry: The Jewish Priests and Cohanim DNA Study

The search for Israelite/Middle Eastern DNA among contemporary Jewish populations properly begins with Dr. Karl Skorecki’s landmark genetic study of the Cohanim, the priests of the Jewish religion. The study came about based on the following story:

Dr. Skorecki, a Cohen of Eastern European descent (Ashkenazim), was attending synagogue one morning. During the service, a Cohen of Sephardic descent from North Africa was reading from the Hebrew bible. According to Jewish tradition, all Cohanim (plural of “Cohan” or “Cohen”) are direct descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses, and serve important priestly functions within the Jewish religion. The line of the Cohanim is patrilineal, allegedly being passed from father to son without interruption from Aaron, for 3,300 years, or more than 100 generations. Dr. Skorecki wondered if this claim could actually be tested. Could he find scientific evidence to support the oral tradition of an ancient priestly lineage? Did he and the Sephardic Cohen possess a set of common genetic markers indicating they shared a common ancestor?

Dr. Skorecki, a nephrologist already involved in molecular genetic research, contacted Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona, a pioneer in Y chromosome research, and the Cohanim DNA study was born. Their findings clearly indicated that the Cohanim did indeed share a common ancestor. They discovered that a particular haplotype was found in 97 out of the 106 participants tested. This haplotype has come to be known as the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” or “CMH”. According to the study, calculations for dating the CMH yielded a time frame of 106 generations from the ancestral founder of the lineage – approximately 3,300 years ago (Thomas et al. 1998).

Not only did the genetic researchers corroborate the oral history of an ancient Jewish priestly caste, but they also confirmed the genetic link between both Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations, indicating that before the two populations separated, those who shared the CMH also shared common Israelite ancestry. Today, the CMH is considered not only the standard genetic signature of the priestly Cohanim, but also the yardstick by which all Jewish DNA is compared for determination of Israelite genetic ancestry. Thus, if a haplogroup is not shared by both Sephardim and Ashkenazim at a similar frequency, then it is generally not considered to be of Israelite origin.

Skorecki and Hammer reported that the CMH occurred within Y chromosome haplogroup J (Skorecki et al. 1997). We now know significantly more about haplogroup J than when these studies were originally published. Haplogroup J consists of an ancestral form (J*) and two subgroups – J1 and J2. Although you can have the CMH in either J1 or J2, it is the genetic signature in J1 that is considered the Jewish priestly signature.

What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997). So nearly half of the Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in haplogroups other than J1. Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004). Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1.

Additionally, many other haplogroups among the Ashkenazim, and among the Cohanim in particular, appear to be of Israelite/Middle Eastern origin. According to Behar (2003), the Cohanim possess an unusually high frequency of haplogroup J in general, reported to comprise nearly 87% of the total Cohanim results. Among the Sephardim, the frequency of 75% is also notably high (Behar 2003). Both groups have dramatically lower percentages of other haplogroups, including haplogroup E. Given the high frequency of haplogroup J among Ashkenazi Cohanim, it appears that J2 may be only slightly less common than J1, perhaps indicating multiple J lineages among the priestly Cohanim dating back to the ancient Israelite kingdom.

However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations, with a very low frequency in Italy and Greece as well (Semino et al. 2004). The group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant. Its presence among contemporary Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations indicates the preservation of Israelite Semitic ancestry, despite their long settlement in Europe and North Africa. Further, the CMH is considered the putative ancestral haplotype of haplogroup J1 (Di Giacomo et al. 2004).

Table 1 compares the Jewish J1 CMH to the J1 modal haplotypes of other Middle Eastern populations:

Table 1

Modal Haplotypes* in J1 Populations

J1

GROUPS

Researchers believe that marker 388=17 is linked with the later expansion of Arabian tribes in the southern Levant and northern Africa (Di Giacomo et al. 2004). There were two migrations of J1, the first occurring in the Neolithic period, spreading J1 to Ethiopia and Europe (Semino et al. 2004). A second wave of J1 occurred in the 7th century, spread by Arab expansion from the southern Levant into North Africa. This secondary migration is also distinguished by a mutational event at marker YCAII—YCAIIa=22 and YCAIIb=22 (Semino et al. 2004).

The Cohanim study was widely misinterpreted by the public as indicating that all Jews were in haplogroup J and had the CMH. Furthermore, many non-Jews in haplogroup J mistakenly believed that they must have some Jewish ancestry hidden in their past to explain their DNA results. As it turned out, most non-Jews were in subgroup J2 rather than J1 (Semino et al. 2004). Interestingly, Jews were later found to have as much J2 ancestry as J1.

The misinterpretation of the Cohanim results was damaging in some ways to the wider understanding of Jewish genetic ancestry. For example, one widely published media quote went like this: “This genetic research has clearly refuted the once-current libel that Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar (sic) tribe – a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism.” Further, it was claimed that “[r]esearchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence” (Kleinman 1999).

However, it would soon become very clear that Jewish DNA was much more complicated than was presented by the media in their reporting of the Cohanim data. And Jewish Khazarian ancestry would come to the public’s attention yet again when another DNA study was conducted, this time on the Jewish priestly group known as the Levites.[27]

by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman

Reprinted with permission from Jewish Action, the magazine of the Orthodox Union. For more info, see: Cohen-Levi.org.

Dr. Karl Skorecki was attending synagogue services one morning. The Torah was removed from the ark and a Cohen was called up for the first aliyah. The Cohen summoned that particular morning was a visitor: a Sephardic Jew whose parents were from Morocco. Dr. Skorecki also has a tradition of being a Cohen, though of Ashkenazic background: His parents were born in Eastern Europe. He looked at the Sephardic Cohen's physical features and considered his own. They were significantly different in stature, skin coloration and hair and eye color.

A nephrologist and a top-level researcher at the University of Toronto and at the Rambam-Technion Medical Center in Haifa, Dr. Skorecki was involved in the breakthroughs in molecular genetics which are revolutionizing medicine and the study of the life-sciences. He was also aware of the newly developing application of DNA analysis to the study of history and population diversity.

Dr. Skorecki considered, "According to tradition, this Sephardi and I are both direct descendants of one man, Aaron the Cohen. Could this line have been maintained since Sinai and throughout the long exile of the Jewish people?"

As a scientist, he wondered, could such a claim be tested? He considered a hypothesis: If all Cohanim are descendants of one man, they should have a common set of genetic markers, a common haplotype -- that of their common ancestor. In this case, Aaron the Cohen.

BUILDING THE HYPOTHESIS

A genetic marker is a variation in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA, known as a mutation. Mutations which occur within genes -- a part of the DNA which codes for a protein usually cause a malfunction or disease, and is lost due to selection in succeeding generations. However, mutations found in so-called "non-coding regions" of the DNA tend to persist.

Since the (male) Y chromosome consists almost entirely of non-coding DNA, it would tend to accumulate mutations. Since it is passed from father to son without recombination, the genetic information on a Y chromosome of a man living today is basically the same as that of his ancient male ancestors, except for the rare mutations that occur along the hereditary line. A combination of these neutral mutations, known as a haplotype, can serve as a genetic signature of a man's male ancestry. Maternal genealogies are also being studied by means of the m-DNA (mitrocondrial DNA), which is inherited only from the mother.

Dr. Skorecki then made contact with Professor Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona, a leading researcher in molecular genetics and a pioneer in Y chromosome research. Professor Hammer uses DNA analysis to study the history of populations, their origins and migrations. His previous research included work on the origins of the Native American Indians and the development of the Japanese people.

A study was undertaken to test the hypothesis. If there is a common ancestor, the Cohanim should have common genetic markers at a higher frequency than the general Jewish population.

ASTONISHING RESULTS

In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal, "Nature" (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel, England and North America were asked to specify whether they were a Cohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background.

The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Cohanim and non-Cohanim were indeed significant. A particular marker (YAP-), was detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohanim, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohanim.

In a second study, Dr. Skorecki and associates gathered more DNA samples and expanded their selection of Y chromosome markers. Solidifying their hypothesis of the common ancestor of Cohanim, they found that a particular array of six chromosomal markers were found in 97 of the 106 Cohanim tested. This collection of markers has come to be known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) -- the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these findings happening at random is greater than one in 10,000.

The finding of a common set of genetic markers in both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohanim worldwide clearly indicates an origin pre-dating the separate development of the two communities around 1000 CE. Date calculation based on the variation of the mutations among Cohanim today yields a time frame of 106 generations from the ancestral founder of the line, some 3,300 years, the approximate time of the exodus from Egypt, the lifetime of Aaron the Cohen.

TRIBAL DESCENT

Professor Hammer was recently in Israel for the Jewish Genome Conference. He confirmed that his findings are consistent: over 80 percent of self-identified Cohanim have a common set of markers. The finding that less than one-third of the non-Cohen Jews who were tested possess these markers is not surprising to the geneticists. "Jewishness" is not defined genetically. Other Y chromosomes can enter the Jewish gene pool through conversion or through a non-Jewish father. Jewish status is determined by the mother. Tribe membership follows the father's family line.

Calculations based on the high rate of genetic similarity of today's Cohanim resulted in the highest "paternity-certainty" rate ever recorded in population genetics studies -- a scientific testimony to family faithfulness.

Wider genetic studies of diverse present-day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied.

This genetic research has clearly refuted the once-current libel that Ashkenazic Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar tribe -- a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazic Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence.

LEVITE NUMBERS

In their second published paper in "Nature" (July 9,1998), the researchers included an unexpected finding.

Those Jews in the study who identified themselves as Levites did not show a common set of markers as did the Cohanim. The Levites clustered in three groupings, one of them the CMH. According to tradition, they should also show a genetic signature from a common patrilineal ancestor.

It is interesting to note that the tribe of Levi has a history of a lack of quantity. The census in the Biblical Book of Numbers shows Levi to be the smallest of the tribes. After the Babylonian exile, the Levites failed to return en masse to Jerusalem, though urged by Ezra the Scribe to do so. (They were therefore fined by losing their exclusive rights to tithes.) Though statistically, the Levites should be more numerous than Cohanim, in synagogues today it is not unusual to have a minyan with a surplus of Cohanim, yet not one Levi. Researchers are now focusing efforts on the study of the genetic make-up of Levites to learn more about their history in the Diaspora.

Using the CMH as a DNA signature of the ancient Hebrews, researchers are pursuing a hunt for Jewish genes around the world. The search for lost tribes, whether the Biblical Ten Lost Tribes which were uprooted from the land of Israel by the Assyrians, or other would-be Jews, Hebrews or "chosen peoples," is not new. Using the genetic markers of the Cohanim as a yardstick, these genetic archaeologists are using DNA research to discover historical links to the Jewish people.

Many individual Cohanim and others have approached the researchers to be tested. The researchers' policy is that the research is not a test of individuals, but an examination of the extended family. Having the CMH is not proof of one's being a Cohen. At present, there are no ramifications [in Jewish law] of this discovery. No one is certified nor disqualified because of his Y chromosome markers.

The research, which began with an idea in synagogue, has shown a clear genetic relationship amongst Cohanim and their direct lineage from a common ancestor. The research findings support the Torah statements that the line of Aaron will last throughout history... [28]

January 2, 2005: “The enemy advances as high as the red lion. They were met by our advanced party under Col. Crawford[29]- the engagement was pretty hot. Several on each side were wounded and some slain Strong reinforcements were sent which obliged our men to give grounds. The enemy returned. Our Division (General Stevens) went to our alarm post stayed a few hours and returned to camp Pitched our Tents and slept hartily[30]”

Micheal Cecere, author of “They behaved like soldiers” gives a talk at Trenton, January 2, 2005. Gary Goodlove received a signed copy.

January 2, 2005

Janek Yainig, the regiments cook, keeps the army of reenactors fed.

Matt Murphy of the 2nd New Jersey Regiment demonstrates how to load a flint lock “Brown Bess”.

British Regiments muster at the Old Barracks…

Hessian soldiers prior to the battle at Trenton.

Von Donop Reenactment Regiment.

January 2nd, 2005:Reenactment of the Battle of Trenton

Photo JG

TheVon Donop Reenactment Regiment is given a final inspection by Hessian ancestor Gary Goodlove and his wife Mary “Winch” Goodlove (Mary’s GGGGG Grandfather Jason Winch was a minuteman, and responded to the alarm on April 19, 1775. He fought at the Battle of Lexington, and his name is listed officially as one of the men on the field on that day. He also served at the Battle of Bunker Hill, and remained in the
service for 8 months during the successful seige of Boston. He was given a pension for service, and he remembered seeing Gen. Washington.)

The Von Donop Regiment “goosesteps” through Trenton prior to the reenactment of the “Battle of Trenton”, January 2, 2005.

December 26, 1922 – January 2, 2007

Winton D. Goodlove

Birth:
December 26, 1922

Death:
January 2, 2007

h/o Berniece E.

Family links:
Spouse:
Berniece E. Goodlove (1923 - 1999)

Burial:
Jordans Grove Cemetery
Central City
Linn County
Iowa, USA

Created by: Gail Wenhardt
Record added: Apr 04, 2011
Find A Grave Memorial# 67902190

Added by: Gail Wenhardt

Cemetery Photo
Added by: Jackie L. Wolfe

January 2, 2011

[31]

Jacqulin, Jeff, and Jillian Goodlove visit the Oriental Institute Museum, January 2, 2011.

[32]

January 2, 2011: Jillian speaking “squid” as Jacqulin watches with some reservation at the Greek Islands.

[33]

January 2, 2011 at Greek Islands in Chicago after a visit to the Oriental Museum at the University of Chicago.

[34]

The First Israelites, Iron Age I: 1200-975 BC

New groups grew in importance after the collapse of the Late Bronze age.

Megiddo passed from Egypt’s control at the close of the Late Bronze Age as the great powers of Egypt, Mycenae, Syro-Anatolia experienced a widespread collapse. The Israelites and other local populations in the Southern Levant began to emerge and evolve.

At this time Canaanites lived in the southern Levant and around Megiddo. They had been there during the Bronze age and had characteristic pottery, religious practices, and housing.

At the same time a small number of villages sprouted up in the highlands. Many scholars believe that these were the earliest villages of the Israelites.

Various groups of Sea Peoples settled along the eastern Mediterranean coast following the collapse of the Mycenean world in the Aegean. In the southern Levant they are known as the Philistines.

Artifacts from the stratum at Megiddo (Strattum VI) include bowls of jars typical of local populations; scarabs and amulets crafted by Egyptians, and painted pottery brought by Sea Peoples colonizing the coast. The dynamic and fluid interactions by these cultured during the transitional age are reflected by the diverse remains at Megiddo. [35]

[36]

522 to 486: Ornamental Peg with Trilingual text. Egyptian Blue, Acheimenid Period, Reign of Darius I, 522 to 486 B.C, Iran, Persepolis, Southeast Palace.

The inscription on this peg is the same text written in three languages. (Old Persian, Akkadian, and Elamite.) “Knobbed peg of precious stone made in the house of Darius the King.” Although the old Persian script uses wedges, the signs are different from those of Mesopotanian cuneiform and unlike the cuneiform writing of Sumerian are mostly syllables rather than whole words.[37]


[38]

[39]

[40]

Sherri discovers the Royal Israelite city.

[41]

600 A.D.: Medieval Nubia. Christianity changed Nubian society. Nubia consisted of the three kingdoms of Noubadia, Makuria, and Alwa when Byzantine missionaries converted it to Christianity just before 600 A.D. The conversion brought great social change and introduced a new set of symbols for art and architecture. Many churches were built, some richly decorated with paintingffs, and Christian motifs like the cross and the fish appear on painted pottery. With the new religious beliefs, burials became simple graves devoid of grave goods except for clothing and wrappings. [42]

This wall painting shows an eparch, or governor, of Nubia backed by a figure of Christ in Byzantine style. It was found by Polish excavators in the cathedral at Faras. [43]

Shemot - Exodus

Chapter 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.

2 And the woman conceived, and bore a son; and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.

3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch; and she put the child therein, and laid it in the flags by the river's brink.

4 And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him. 5 And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe in the river; and her maidens walked along by the river-side; and she saw the ark among the flags, and sent her handmaid to fetch it.

6 And she opened it, and saw it, even the child; and behold a boy that wept. And she had compassion on him, and said: 'This is one of the Hebrews' children.'

7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter: 'Shall I go and call thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?'

8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her: 'Go.' And the maiden went and called the child's mother.

9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her: 'Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.' And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.' 11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

13 And he went out the second day, and, behold, two men of the Hebrews were striving together; and he said to him that did the wrong: 'Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?'

14 And he said: 'Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? thinkest thou to kill me, as thou didst kill the Egyptian?' And Moses feared, and said: 'Surely the thing is known.'

15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down by a well. 16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.

17 And the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.

18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said: 'How is it that ye are come so soon to-day?'

19 And they said: 'An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and moreover he drew water for us, and watered the flock.'

20 And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is he? Why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.'

21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man; and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.

22 And she bore a son, and he called his name Gershom for he said: 'I have been a stranger in a strange land.' 23 And it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto G-d by reason of the bondage.

24 And G-d heard their groaning, and G-d remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

25 And G-d saw the children of Israel, and G-d took cognizance of them.[44]

[45]

Jacqulin studies the Assyrian Empire.

[46]

[47]

882 BCE: Baasha’s son Elah is assassinated by one of his officers, Zimri, Zimri, however, cannot withstand the attack on Tirzah by another officer, Omri, who becomes king of Israel.[48]

882-871: Omri, King of northern Israel.[49]

876: King Omri (882-871 BCE) forges alliances with his neighors, marrying his son Ahab to the princess of the Phoenician port of Sidon, Jezebel. Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah will be married to the son of King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehoram.[50]

Ahab’s reign (873-852 BCE) is remembered as one pervadede by the pagan Baal cult, promoted by Queen Jesebel. The case for YHWH is fought by the legend like wonder-working prophet Elijah of Gilead. According to the Bible, Elijah confronts the Israelites, asking how long they will flit back and forth like a fickle bird between worshipping their God or the Cannanite-Phenician Ball.[51]

858-824 B.C.

Plaster Cast

The Black Obelisk of Shalmanmeser III

[52]

Jillian Goodlove with the Assyiran Obelisk at the Oriental Institute.

605-530 B.C.: Daniel, major prophet in Southern Israel.[53]

In 604, the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s accension, the prophet Jeremiah revived the iconoclastic perspective of Isaiah which turned the triumphalist doctrine of the Chosen People on its head: God was using Babylon as his instrument to punish Israel, and it was now Israel’s turn to be “put under a ban.” They would go into exile for seventy years. When King Jehoiakim heard this oracle, he snatched the scroll from the hads of the scribe, cut it in pieces and threw it on the fire. Fearing for his life, Jeremiah was forced to go into hiding.[54]

604BCE: Nebuchadrezzr II (605-562 BCE), now king of Babylon following his father’s death, campaigns from Syria through Israel, ravaging much of Philistia. King Hehoiakim of Judah submits to Babylonian control.[55]

604 B.C.: Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzr’s dream. Daniel 2:1-49.[56]

604 to 562 B.C. The Striding Lion.

[57]

Jillian contemplates the Striding Lion at the Oriental Institute.

[58]

[59]

Striding Lion

Molded and glazed brick

Babylon, New-Babylonian Period ca. 604-562 B.C.

This colorful striding lion, its mouth opened in a threatening roar, once decorated a side of the “Processsional Way”, past some 129 lions such as this one, and out through the Ishtar Gate to a special festival home north of the city

A painting showing the Ishtar Gate and the Processioanal Way is exhibited on the gallery wall behind the lion.[60]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/


[2] http://www.levity.com/alchemy/islam16.html


[3] mike@abcomputers.com


[4] mike@abcomputers.com


[5] Torrence and Allied Families, Robert M. Torrence pgs 307-308


[6] . [Robert Torrence, Torrence and Allied Families (Philadelphia: Wickersham Press, 1938), 307; State of Virginia, County of Richmond, Deed Book No. 5, page 278] A Chronological Listing of Events In the Lives of Andrew Harrison, Sr. of Essex County, Virginia, Andrew Harrison, Jr. of Essex and Orange Counties, Virginia, Lawrence Harrison, Sr. of Virginia and Pennsylvania Compiled from Secondary Sources Covering the time period of 1640 through 1772 by Daniel Robert Harrison, Milford, Ohio, November, 1998.


[7] http://www.nps.gov/archive/fone/1754.htm


[8] http://members.tripod.com/~Silvie/Schilling.html


[9] A nineteenth century engraving. Elected by backcountry riflemen as their leader, this very able officer served with distinction through the New York and New Jersey campaigns. In the second battle of Trenton he took command on the Maidenhead Road when his superior officer, General Fermoy, a French volunteer, fled as the British approached. Henry P. Johnson, The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn (1878). Washington’s Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer.


[10] Col. William Crawford is listed as having served in the 5th Virginia Regiment, Feb. 13, 1776 and the 7th later that year. His campaigns include Trenton and Princeton. They surprised the Hessians at Trenton, Captured at least one thousand prisoners and killed their commander. The Americans escaped back to their camp with very few losses.

Washington moved his army in darkness; swiftly through the rural areas, falling upon the enemy troops near Princeton, taking more than 200 prisoners. Before Cornwallis could rally his forces, the Americans were safely stationed at Morristown Heights.

(From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford by Grace U. Emahiser, 1969, page 142)


[11] George Washington, A Biography in His Own Words, Edited by Ralph K. Andrist


[12] Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 6 January 1, 1777 - April 30, 1777




[13] Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 6 January 1, 1777 - April 30, 1777


[14] Kaskaskia was the original gateway to the west. It was a thriving French capital and the first capital of Illinois. If you look for Kaskakia on the map now, you cant find it. Today it is an island on the Mississippi river with 9 residents. They have a Missouri zip code and Illinois drivers licenses. The first governor of Illinois home still stands today. In a church that goes back to 1675 holds its biggest treasure, a liberty bell older than the one in Philadelphia. It is from King Louis XV. (How the States Got Their Shapes, HIST, 4/6/2010.)


[15] George Rogers Clark Papers 1781-1784 James Alton James, Ed.




[16] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/


[17] [edit] References

1. ^ Blitz, C. Rudolph. The Religious Reforms of Joseph II (1780-1790) and their Economic Significance.Pg. 583

2. ^ a b Blitz, C. Rudolph. The Religious Reforms of Joseph II (1780-1790) and their Economic Significance.Pg.585

3. ^ O'Brien, H.C. Ideas of Religious Toleration at the time of Joseph II.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society pg.7 Retrieved 02-2008

4. ^ O'Brien, H.C. Ideas of Religious Toleration at the time of Joseph II. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Retrieved 02-2008

5. ^ Blitz, C. Rudolph. The Religious Reforms of Joseph II (1780-1790) and their Economic Significance.Pg.584

6. ^ O'Brien, H.C. Ideas of Religious Toleration at the time of Joseph II.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society pg.24 Retrieved 02-2008

7. ^ O'Brien, H.C. Ideas of Religious Toleration at the time of Joseph II.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society pg.29 Retrieved 02-2008

8. ^ Ingrao, W. Charles. The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815Great Britain:Cambridge University Press, 1994. pg 199

9. ^ O'Brien, H.C. Ideas of Religious Toleration at the time of Joseph II.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society pg.30 Retrieved 02-2008
•"The Religious Reforms of Joseph II (1780-1790) and their Economic Significance". Journal of European Economic History 18: 583–586. 1989.
•Ingrao, Charles W. (1994). The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. p. 199.
•Mendes-Flohr, Paul and Reinharz, Jehuda, ed. The Jew in the Modern World, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
•O'Brien, Charles H. (1969). "The Ideas of Religious Toleration at the time of Joseph II. A Study of the Enlightenment among Catholics in Austria." (PDF). American Philosophical Society 59 (7): 5–80. JSTOR 1006062.


[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1782_Edict_of_Tolerance


[19] http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Haskalah.htm


[20] ON This Day in America by John Wagman


1. [21] ^ Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 131 ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3 (noting that "Madison, along with other Americans clearly understood" the Articles of Confederation "to be the first federal Constitution.")

2. ^ a b c d e f Maier 2010, pp. 11-13.

3. ^ Maier 2010, pp. 12-13, 19.

4. ^ Maier 2010, pp. 15-16.

5. ^ Bowen 2010, pp. 129-130.

6. ^ Bowen 2010, p. 31.

7. ^ Maier 2010, p. 13.

8. ^ Wood 1998, pp. 356-367, 359.

9. ^ Maier 2010, pp. 14, 30, 66.

10. ^ Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification : the people debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684868547 p.21.

11. ^ Bowen, Catherine (2010) [First published 1966]. Miracle at Philadelphia : the story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September, 1787. New York: Little, Brown. ISBN 9780316102612. p.11.

12. ^ Morris (1987) pp 298–99.

13. ^ Armstrong, Virginia Irving (1971). I Have Spoken: American History Through the Voices of the Indians. Pocket Books. p. 14. ISBN 671-78555-9. See also, House Concurrent Resolution 331, October 21, 1988. United States Senate. Retrieved 2008-11-23.. In October 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Concurrent Resolution 331 to recognize the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

14. ^ Greymont, Barbara. The Iroquois in the American Revolution 1972. ISBN 0-8156-0083-6, p.vii.

15. ^ Morgan, Edmund S., Benjamin Franklin 2002. ISBN 0-300-10162-7 (pbk) p.80-81 Viewed December 29, 2011.

16. ^ Mee, Charles L., Jr. The Genius of the People. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. p. 237

17. ^ Greymont, Barbara. Op.cit. p.66 These intrigues were mounted by (a) the French and British empires, (b) the colonies, then states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and (c) the United States as the Continental Congress, the Articles Congress and subsequently.

18. ^ NARA. "National Archives Article on the Bill of Rights". http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html. Retrieved 2007-12-16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution


[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Prairie_du_Chien


[23] William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary annotated by Jeff Goodlove


[24] http://www.bessel.org/datemas.htm


[25] http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48936742.html


[26] http://voices.yahoo.com/cohen-gene-y-chromosomal-aaron-4744178.html


[27] http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm


[28] http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=95


[29] September, 1777;After Gen. Howe spent the summer in New York, at Brandywine the same British policies were used on the Americans, at Chad’s Ford, where losses were extreme. By this time, Washington and his little band of men, gained favor in the eyes of the world’s valiant leaders and warriors.

(From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford by Grace U. Emahiser, 1969, page 142)




[30]They behaved like soldiers, Captain John Tiltens, 3rd Virginia Regiment 1775-1778 by Michael Cecere.


[31] Photo by Sherri.


[32] Photo by Jeff Goodlove


[33] Photo by the Waiter.


[34] The Oriental Institute Museum , Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[35] The Oriental Institute Museum , Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[36] The Oriental Institute Museum, Janaury 2, 2011.


[37] The Oriental Institute Museum, January 2, 2011


[38] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011.


[39] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011.


[40] The Oriental Institute Musem, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[41] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[42] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[43] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[44] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Exodus2.html


[45] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011.


[46] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[47] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January


[48] The Time Tables of Jewish History, A chronology of the Most Important People and Events in Jewish History, by Judah Gribetz, page 14.


[49] Fascinating Facts about the Holy Land by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.


[50] The Time Tables of Jewish History, A chronology of the Most Important People and Events in Jewish History, by Judah Gribetz, page 15.


[51] The Time Tables of Jewish History, A chronology of the Most Important People and Events in Jewish History, by Judah Gribetz, page 15.




[52] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[53]


[54] Fascinating Facts about the Holy Land, by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.

istory of God, by Karen Armstrong, page 55..


[55] The Time Tables of Jewish History, A chronology of the Most Important People and Events in Jewish History, by Judah Gribetz, page 24.


[56] The One Year Chronology Bible, NIV, page 1023.


[57] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011


[58] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011




[59] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011




[60] The Oriental Institute Museum, Photo by Jeff Goodlove, January 2, 2011