An archaeological excavation at the Battle of Bunker Hill site has uncovered ammunition used in the fight and the outlines of an earthen fort, buried for 250 years, that helped launch the American Revolution.

A new book delves into an unknown chapter of the American Revolution, revealing how colonists not only rebelled against taxes but also against British silver, preferring to retain their own paper currency.

Christian Wallace, co-creator of Landman, has been tapped to write the film adaptation of a book focusing on a key organization from the American Revolution.

Senator Ted Cruz criticized Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling her a "little Marxist" and blasting her claims that billionaires did not earn their wealth. Cruz argued that her ideology leads to communism.

Renowned filmmaker Ken Burns discusses his extensive career and his perspectives on American history, including his work on the American Revolution. He shares his visions of America through his documentary lens.

Eat The Rich: California Democrats Trigger Reverse Gold Rush With Wealth Tax Authored by Jonathan Turley, This month, the anniversary of the California Gold Rush came and passed with little mention … for good reason. When James W. Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill, millions traveled great distances to seek their fortune in the “Golden State.” Now, 178 years later, California has engineered an inverse Gold Rush, virtually chasing wealth from the state. Rather than covered wagons going West, there is a line of U-Hauls going anywhere other than California. From boondoggle projects to reparations, California politicians continue to rack up new spending projects despite a soaring deficit and shrinking tax base. Rather than exercise a modicum of fiscal restraint, Democrats are pushing through a tax that takes five percent of the wealth of any billionaires left in the state. I have long criticized the tax as perfectly moronic for a state with the highest tax burden and one of the highest flight rates of top taxpayers. In my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the reversal of fortunes in California and other blue states as politicians unleash new “eat the rich” campaigns before the midterm elections. The problem, of course, is that billionaires are mobile, as is their wealth. Liberals expect billionaires to stay put in a type of voluntary canned hunt.  They are not. Billionaires are joining the growing exodus from the state, taking their companies, investments, and jobs with them. The latest billionaire to be chased off may be Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is reportedly heading for Florida. The growing departures have triggered outrage among many on the left, who are in disbelief that billionaires will just not stand still to be fleeced. Former New York Magazine editor Kara Swisher captured that rage in a recent posting, declaring “you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . so why don’t we just do shock and awe at this point, because you don’t seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more.” By some estimates, California has already cost over a trillion dollars in lost investments and business. That is no small achievement. Here’s a mind teaser: How can you burn a trillion dollars (which would create a stack some 67,866 miles high) without taking years and destroying the environment? California politicians have a solution: Have people take it out of the state in a reverse gold rush. In addition to saying that they want to grab 5 percent of the wealth of these billionaires, California Democrats are planning to base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, particularly with start-ups, entrepreneurs have greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, they will be taxed as if voting shares amounted to actual wealth. In other words, California is moving to nuke the entrepreneurs who created the Silicon Valley boom. Emmanuel Saez, the U.C. Berkeley economist who helped design the tax, insists that they may not want to stay, but they will still be tapped. They are planning to trap the wealthy fleeing the state retroactively: “The tax is based on residence as of Jan. 1, 2026, sharply limiting their ability to flee the state to avoid paying. Despite billionaires’ threats to leave, I think extremely few will have been able to change residence by Jan. 1, given the complexity of doing so.” The effort to retroactively impose such a tax is legally controversial and will face years of challenges. In my view, this is unconstitutional, but admittedly it is a murky area. Regardless of the outcome, a wealth tax will affect a wide range of other wealthy taxpayers. If Democrats can get a retroactive wealth tax to be upheld, it is doubtful that they will stop with billionaires. Why should other top taxpayers stick around to find out where the next cull will fall in the tax brackets? Recently, Gavin Newsom boasted, “California isn’t just keeping pace with the world — we’re setting the pace.” That is undeniably true if the measure is the record number of U-Hauls fleeing the state — more than any other state. Indeed, the only thing harder to find than a wealthy taxpayer in California appears to be a U-Haul. According to U-Haul’s data, the state is again leading blue states in the exodus. The Washington Post noted recently that “California came in last. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey rounded out the bottom five. Of the bottom 10, seven voted blue in the last election.” Conversely, “nine of the top 10 growth states voted red in the last presidential election,” with Texas again leading the growth states. The Post put it succinctly, “People want to live in pro-growth, low-tax states, while the biggest losers tend to be places with big governments and high taxes.” The problem is that, while the economics are horrific, the politics remain irresistible. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents part of Silicon Valley, recently mocked billionaires rushing to escape the state. Laughing at his own constituents, Khanna quipped, “I will miss them very much.” You will not be alone as California becomes known as the La Brea Tar Pit of taxation. They are on the verge of converting the state motto from “Eureka” to “Welcome to Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” Tyler Durden Sat, 02/14/2026 - 20:15

The article highlights Mercy Otis Warren, described as the most critical chronicler of the American Revolutionary War, as part of a series on American history.

Gordon Wood, a renowned historian of the American Revolutionary period, has passed away at the age of 92.

Cannons that were lost underwater during the American Revolution have been recovered and will soon be put on display at a museum in Georgia.

Christian Wallace, co-creator of 'Landman', is set to adapt Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger’s bestselling historical book 'George Washington’s Secret Six: The Spy Ring That Saved the American Revolution' for the big screen.

As the US remembers the American Revolution, stories of Black and Indigenous patriots are coming into focus, shedding new light on their contributions.

A historical reflection discusses a benevolent king with a troubled mind, attributing his madness to porphyria rather than historical events, during the periods of the French and American Revolutions.

Historical analysis highlights John Adams' pivotal role as the driving force behind the American Revolution, contrasting him with George Washington as the 'sword' and Thomas Jefferson as the 'pen'.

Historical analysis suggests that the success of the American Revolutionary War was significantly aided by crucial alliances both domestically and internationally.

Ken Burns and David Schmidt's six-part documentary series "The American Revolution," which took 10 years to make and aims to give a voice to the underrepresented, was released by PBS.

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley published commentary criticizing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's views on billionaires and her interpretation of the American Revolution, arguing she misrepresents America's founding principles.

The article investigates the active role of Sephardic Jewish merchants on the Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius, a busy free port, in aiding the American Revolutionary War effort.

An opinion piece highlights the significant, often overlooked, contributions of Jewish merchants, artisans, and professionals to the American Revolutionary War effort, including providing supplies, raising funds, and joining militias.

Panics, Politics, & Power: America's 3 Experiments With Central Banks Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times, The Federal Reserve, established more than a century ago, is the United States’ third experiment with central banking. For much of its existence, the institution maintained a low public profile. Only after the 2008 global financial crisis did the Fed begin communicating more openly, introducing post-meeting press conferences and allowing monetary policymakers to engage more frequently with the media. Greater transparency, however, has brought greater scrutiny. Public sentiment toward the Fed and its leadership has fluctuated over the years. Today, YouGov polling suggests the central bank is viewed favorably by 44 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 18 percent. If the Fed pursues a series of reforms, it will have “another great 100 years,” said Kevin Warsh, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as the institution’s next chair. Comparable to past central banks, Warsh said, the current Federal Reserve System is beginning to lose the consent of the governed. “You can think about the Jacksonians of prior times say that the central bank seems like they’re trying to focus and they’re all preoccupied with those special interests on the East Coast, and they’ve lost track of what’s happening to us in the center of the country,” Warsh said in a July 2025 interview with the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson. “It’s a version of what worries me today.” What happened in the past, and why is it relevant to today’s central bank? The First Bank of the United States In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the United States faced a series of immense economic disruptions, forcing the nation’s architects to rebuild the economy. The objective was to lower inflation, restore the value of the nation’s currency, repay war debt, and revive the economy. Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury under the new Constitution, proposed establishing a national bank modeled on the Bank of England. Hamilton stated that a U.S. version would perform various duties, including issuing paper money, serving as the government’s fiscal agent, and protecting public funds. Not everyone shared Hamilton’s ebullience over a central bank. Thomas Jefferson, for example, feared that such an institution would not serve the nation’s best interests. Additionally, Jefferson and other critics argued that the Constitution did not grant the government the authority to create these entities. Nevertheless, Congress enacted legislation to establish the Bank of the United States. President George Washington then signed the bill in February 1791. Two of America's founding fathers: Thomas Jefferson (L) and Alexander Hamilton. The White House While bank officials did not conduct monetary policy as modern central banks do, they did influence the supply of money and credit, as well as interest rates. The entity managed the money supply by controlling when to redeem or retain state‑bank notes. If it sought to tighten credit, it would require payment in gold or silver, thereby draining state banks’ reserves and limiting their ability to issue new notes. If it wanted to expand credit, it simply held on to those notes, boosting state‑bank reserves and enabling them to lend more. By 1811, the national bank’s charter expired. While there had been discussions of allowing it to continue maintaining operations, Congress—both chambers—voted against renewing its mandate by a single vote. Its closure came shortly before the War of 1812, which fueled inflation and weakened the currency. Second Bank of the United States Lawmakers believed another central bank was critical at a time of fiscal, inflationary, and trade pressures. Congress used a similar 20-year model to produce the Second Bank of the United States, headed by Nicholas Biddle. The second incarnation had a federal charter, was privately owned, and was tasked with regulating state banks (with gold and silver for note redemption). President James Madison, who opposed the first central bank on constitutional grounds, supported the new institution out of financial necessity. Its creation stabilized credit and brought down inflation. However, by the 1830s, the bank faced strong opposition, particularly from President Andrew Jackson. Labeled the Bank War, Jackson engaged in a years-long initiative to dissolve the central bank. Jackson claimed the national bank was a tool for the wealthy eastern elite and a threat to self-government. “The Jacksonians described themselves as conscious hard-money men who supported the rigid discipline of the gold standard, yet they opposed the newly powerful national Bank because it restrained the expansion of credit and, thus, thwarted robust economic expansion,” author William Greider wrote in “Secrets of the Temple.” In 1832, Jackson vetoed legislation to recharter the bank four years early, delivering a fiery message that historians say was one of the most important vetoes in the nation’s history. “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government,” Jackson wrote. “There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me, there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.” The charter expired in 1836, leading to the panic of 1837. An economic crisis unfolded, leading to bank failures, business bankruptcies, rising unemployment, and contracting credit. While the collapse of the central bank is often considered a leading cause, the British also urged London banks to reduce credit to American merchants, causing a sharp drop in global trade. As the smoke cleared and dust settled, it was not until the 1840s that the United States embarked on a historic economic recovery, now known as the Free Banking Era. Banking was decentralized, and finance was largely unregulated. Despite an erratic financial system, the U.S. economy grew rapidly: agricultural production accelerated, railroads were built, and the country expanded westward. Additionally, deflation was paramount throughout most of the economic expansion. The Federal Reserve System The panic of 1907 led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. Following years of heavy borrowing, speculative commodities investments (mainly copper), and enormous stock market gains, a financial crisis was brewing. The event nearly brought down the U.S. banking system. J.P. Morgan, a financier, intervened and emulated the actions of modern central banks. He met with the nation’s top bankers, facilitated emergency loans to financial institutions, and backed stockbrokers. The damage had been done as the United States fell into a year-long recession, marked by high unemployment and widespread bank failures. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors seal in Washington on Oct. 29, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times Washington realized that it could not rely on private bailouts to prevent sharp downturns. Sen. Nelson Aldrich (R-R.I.) is widely regarded as one of the chief architects of the modern Federal Reserve System. In 1910, Aldrich hosted the famous Jekyll Island meetings, a gathering of U.S. officials and bankers, to discuss the blueprint of a new central bank. While the initial draft laid the foundation for the institution, the official Federal Reserve Act was drafted by President Woodrow Wilson, Rep. Carter Glass (D-Va.), and H. Parker Willis, an economist on the House Banking Committee. The new system was a public-private hybrid, with the federal government firmly in charge, and bankers running the regional reserve banks. “It was Wilson’s great compromise,” wrote Greider, “creating a hybrid institution that mixed private and public control, an approach without precedent at the time.” The legislation triggered a contentious political debate over the extent of its independence from the Treasury and the degree of authority delegated to policymakers over currency issuance. Days before Christmas, the bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law by Wilson on Dec. 23. “Wilson’s conviction that he had struck the right moderate balance seemed confirmed, however, by the reactions to his legislation,” Greider noted. “It was attacked by both extremes—the ‘radicals’ from the Populist states and the bankers in Wall Street and elsewhere.” Since its inception in 1913, the modern Federal Reserve has undergone numerous changes and has gained greater power. The New Deal, for instance, allowed the Fed to become the lender of last resort as Washington learned the central bank could not prevent bank failures. In 1951, the Treasury-Fed Accord restored central bank independence after the Federal Reserve had been forced to keep interest rates artificially low throughout the Second World War. Congress then enacted the Federal Reserve Reform Act in 1977, establishing the dual mandate of promoting maximum employment and maintaining price stability. 2026 and Beyond Over the past 50 years, the Fed has undergone modest changes, including the issuance of forward guidance and the disclosure of emergency lending facilities. But while each new regime has nibbled around the edges, Warsh has suggested he could effect substantial reforms at the central bank. “Until there’s regime change at the Fed and new people running the Fed, a new operating framework, they’re stuck with their old mistakes,” Warsh told Fox Business Network in October 2025. “Bygones aren’t just bygones.” Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 16:20