The American Revolution

Although Betsy Ross ran a munitions factory from her basement, she did not design the American Flag. It was designed by Congressman Francis Hopkinson, a naval flag designer, who was paid by the U.S. government for his design.

Page Contents:

Revolutionary Tidbits

The First Civil War

The American Revolution

Before the Revolution

Meet The Minutemen

Sybil Ludington

George Washington And Prisoners of War

The Boston Massacre

Crispus Attucks

African-American Spy

Revolutionary Spies

Revolutionary Tidbits

What happened to the 56 men who  signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors   and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army,   another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Copyright 2009 by NextEra Media All rights reserved.Feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.

During the American revolution, more inhabitants of the Americancolonies fought for the British than for the Continental Army.

Only 16 percent of the able-bodied males in the American colonies participated in the Revolutionary War.

The First Civil War
By Denis Mueller

The American Revolution was a fight between different factions of the population. It would be fair to say that about a third of the population favored independence, a third was opposed and a third was indifferent. Nowhere was this division more apparent than in the South where quite a ghastly civil war occurred.

The loyalist party in the South was made up of mostly back woods farmers who were newly arrived immigrants. They tended to be from the lower classes and were deeply jealous of the plantation owners who made up the ruling class of the Southern colonies. So when the British took over Charleston, they en- listed the support of those loyal to the crown and bloodshed developed in both North and South Carolina.

Militia bands roved the countryside killing and maiming those who opposed the revolution. Take the case of David Fanning. Fanning swore revenge on a group of colonial Whigs who killed his brother, an epileptic, and abused his father. They saw themselves tarred and feathered when they took the side of the crown. Fanning was taken prisoner on numerous occasions and escaped, actually he escaped fourteen times, before the British took control of Charleston. Once the British were in power they turned to men like Fanning. Fanning's gang roamed the countryside and committed atrocity after atrocity. Women and children were killed on both sides while farmer's homes were burned to the ground. It was whole sale slaughter and each death had to be avenged by the other side.

Regulars of both the British army and the American forces were appalled by the extent of the cruelty by the locals. This was a blood feud that had little to do with the war at hand. In September of 1781, Fanning and his group of about 1,000 men led a raid on the capital of North Carolina. Fanning captured the governor and began to take them to Wilmington where the British held camp. They were attacked and a huge fight broke out where many were killed. Even after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown the loyalists continued their terror.

Why did Fanning and the others kill so many innocent people? It is unlikely that Fanning and the others did this because of any fondness for "His Majesty's" government. No, these acts were much more personal and stemmed from the perceived arrogance of the elite of Charleston who looked down their noses at the new immigrants. They came from backwoods settlements and often fought side by side with native-Americans. In many ways the revolution had created a mirror image of itself.

After the war, many were tried for their crimes while others went to Canada. Some returned to their country after years of exile. Some became elected officials in the new nation. Others saw their property confiscated. Each side had committed atrocities. The war was a fight against the tyranny of the Old World but now many of the revolutionaries felt there needed to be protection against the abuses of the majority. Americans in the future government would need protection, not from kings, but from themselves.

Source: A People's History of the American Revolution, Ray Raphael

The American Revolution
By Denis Mueller

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What great words these are and let's stop to consider just how radical this statement is. When the colonies revolted there was no such government that was even close to the radicalism that is ingrained in this poetic piece of language. Let us consider for a moment that at the time of the revolution the world was dominated by nobility and kings. The idea of republican government was a quaint notion that only dreamers dared to consider.

Some feel that the American Revolution was not radical and that it was a conservative revolt. I am here to tell you that it was as radical as the French Revolution or any of which that followed. It was a social revolution because it sought to transform society as people knew it then. Sure it is filled with contradictions, as is all human thought, but the revolution was something that was completely new.

The idea that people could govern themselves without a king or any kind of special class was new to the political thought of the time. I argue that despite the apparent contradiction, slavery, the lack of women's rights, that all these ills can be addressed by the power these words and ideas expressed by our revolt. Think about it! Would it had been possible to argue against slavery had there not been a revolution? The idea that people could be free is argued by those who protested the ills of slavery and the Jim Crow laws of the 19th and 20 century.

The idea that women should be a part of the social world of their times and political equals with men has its grounding in the American Revolution. Think about it! All groups that protest the injustices of society have at their roots the ideas of our revolution. The whole world has adopted this idea and while countless demagogues have tried to expropriate the meaning of freedom for their own ends, I tell you they can never steal its faith.

We live in a world that is fraught with horror but the idea of freedom is what has driven the progress, which we have achieved since 1776. If some of you are reading and blinking their eyes and wondering is this guy really saying this, the answer is yes I am. All the ills of our world can be addressed by more democracy. The empowerment of all people is the only answer for the troubles that exist on this planet.

So here we are in 2004, facing corporate corruption, media lies, but somehow the truth does get out. Our leaders can lie to us but we can throw them out, or better yet, agitate them until they change. Think of it, racial equality, women's rights, gay rights, challenging the government lies that lead us into war, can all be seen in the spirit of the American Revolution. This is not to say we are where we should be but it is to say that the leaders of our revolt paved a path for us to follow. It is our duty to question leaders, just as the men and women of the American Revolution did and to achieve the common sense belief that all people deserve a fruitful and decent life.

Before the Revolution
By Denis Mueller

Between 1764 and 1769 there were 150 different riots in the thirteen colonies. Tenants wielded axes against their land- lords while poor people burnt down theaters protesting the rule of the elite. They were not protesting against the king but expressing their rage with the conditions and laws that existed at the time. To those in power who were accustomed to European hierarchical societies it was very scary. The old ways were beginning to crumble and life would never be the same in the New World.

One of these men who were taking things into their own hands was Ethan Allen. Allen settled in the Green Mountains of what we now call Vermont. Once, when taken to court, he exposed himself and then threatened to spill the blood of anyone who opposed him. Many people like Allen had settled in the area after fighting the French-Indian wars. Governor Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire promised them land for their efforts. The problem was that the land given to farmers was claimed by the state of New York as well. This led to conflicts. Allen was taken before a court in New York where the judge was a competing landowner and the trial was a forgone conclusion. They ruled against Allen but he warned the court, landowners and the corrupt judge that repercussions would follow. They quickly disappeared back to Albany.

The Green Mountain boys took over and ruled the countryside. They burned the houses of anyone that owned New York leases and threatened the safety of all that opposed them. The upper classes of New York may have rigged the legal system but they did not control the land. Allen carefully built his image and then used the threat of violence to scare off his enemies. Once he locked two New York sheriffs up in different rooms and made them think he had just hanged the other. When re- leased the sheriffs ran back to New York only to find they had been made fools of, and Allen's unsavory reputation was only increased by the incident.

While the Green Mountain boys were fighting New York's authorities, a revolution was breaking out in New England. The boys of Vermont could relate to the uprisings in Boston. Both were fighting against distant rulers who sought to control their lives. They were both fighting for liberty so when fighting broke out an alliance was made.

The Green Mountain boys controlled the West side of the mountains and were happy to fight against the British. While many history books speak of leaders such as Washington, Jefferson and Adams, people who became radicalized through their own action, like Allen, really won the American Revolution. They rebelled because of conditions not because of the advice of leaders. When we look at disturbances throughout the world, we would do well to remember our own revolution. When conditions get bad enough, the people will revolt. It is as simple as that.

Sources: A People's History of the American Revolution, Ray Raphael

Meet the Minutemen

By Jeffery Vail
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2005

By its own description, the National Guard is "the organized militia reserved to the states by the Constitution." Until mobilized to fight or called into service in a federal emergency, the Guard is under the command of the respective governors. That makes today's National Guard a direct descendent of the first forces to guard America's borders: the minutemen. No, we don't mean the current citizens' group that uses that name. We mean the musket-wielding militiamen of yore.

America's earliest militias were basically groups of paramilitary citizen-soldiers organized for the defense of the colonies. Able-bodied men, as young as 16 and as old as 60, were required to join.

As early as 1645, Massachusetts militias were supposed to designate men from each company as rapid responders, ready for action in half an hour or less. The term "minuteman" was used to refer to these rapid responders as far back as 1750. But the minutemen as a distinctive fighting force really emerged in 1774, when Massachusetts militias reorganized for the impending revolution.

That year, authorities in Worcester County fired all their militia's officers (to eliminate British sympathizers). They also improved the militia's training regimen and declared that one-third of all militiamen should "be ready to act at a minute's warning." Five days later, the town of Concord voted to establish a similar force. Towns and counties across the colonies followed suit, and the "minutemen" became the elite irregular troops of the fledgling American nation.

Ex-minuteman Thomas Brown recalled that these elite fighters had "to hold themselves continually in readiness to turn out at a moment's warning . . . in whatever place their services might be required." Pre-Revolutionary War militias generally met only once a year--and then mainly for drinks, tall tales, and target shooting. But the new minuteman units drilled two, three, or even four times a week.

They were the most active and physically capable men available. Most were under 20 years old, though their ranks also included fathers and even grandfathers. Among the hundred or so Lexington minutemen, a dozen were father-son teams and three were men over 60.

About a third of all minutemen were veterans of the French and Indian War, where they had learned guerrilla tactics. Most supplied their own firearms, and--like the rest of America's militiamen--they elected officers from their own ranks. This improved morale and ensured that officers who were not sufficiently anti-British quickly lost their jobs.

Minutemen from Lexington fought the first battle of the Revolution. On the morning of April 19, 1775, a few dozen stood their ground on Lexington Common, awaiting the approach of several hundred British soldiers. The British had been ordered to march to Concord and capture the town's weapons. Along the way, they were supposed to stop in Lexington and arrest John Hancock and Sam Adams.

According to an American who survived the fight, when the British soldiers came in sight of the minutemen blocking their path, a British officer yelled, "Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men." Although they were outnumbered at least seven to one, the minutemen refused to lower their muskets.

No one knows for sure who fired first. Eight Americans were killed and ten wounded during the battle, which ended when the remaining minutemen retreated into the woods. No British soldiers were killed. Hancock and Adams had already fled, so the British marched on to Concord--and into a shootout with three or four hundred militiamen at the town's North Bridge.

The British soldiers withdrew, but as they marched back to Boston, minutemen and other local guerrillas shot them to pieces. British losses from the Battle of Lexington and Concord ultimately totaled 73 dead and 174 wounded. The American Revolution had begun.

--Jeffery Vail

Sybil Ludington

April 5, 1761 - February 26, 1839

Known for: midnight ride in American Revolutionary War

Also known as: the "female Paul Revere" (she rode about twice as far as he did on his famous ride). Married name: Sybil Ogden.

About Sybil Ludington:

Sybil Ludington was the eldest of twelve children. Her father, Col. Ludington, had served in the French and Indian war. As a mill owner in Patterson, New York, he was a community leader, and he volunteered to serve as the local militia commander as war with the British loomed.

When he received word late on April 26, 1777, that the British were attacking Danbury, Connecticut, Colonel Ludington knew that they would move from there into further attacks in New York. As head of the local militia, he needed to muster his troops from their farmhouses around the distict, and to warn the people of the countryside of possible British attack.

Sybil Ludington, 16 years old, volunteered to warn the countryside of the attack and to alert the militia troops to muster at Ludington's. The glow of the flames would have been visible for miles.

She traveled some 40 miles through the towns of Carmel, Mahopac, and Stormville, in the middle of the night, in a rainstorm, on muddy roads, shouting that the British were burning Danbury and calling out the militia to assemble at Ludington's. When Sybil Ludington returned home, most of the militia troops were ready to march to confront the British.

The 400-some troops were not able to save the supplies and the town at Danbury -- the British seized or destroyed food and munitions and burned the town -- but they were able to stop the British advance and push them back to their boats, in the Battle of Ridgefield.

More About Sybil Ludington:

Sybil Ludington's contribution to the war was to help stop the advance of the British, and thus give the American militia more time to organize and resist. She was recognized for her midnight ride by those in the neighborhood, and was also recognized by General George Washington.

Sybil Ludington continued to help as she could with the Revolutionary War effort, in one of the typical roles that women were able to play in that war: as a messenger.

In October, 1784, Sybil Ludington married lawyer Edward Ogden and lived the rest of her life in Unadilla, New York.

Her hometown was renamed Ludingtonville in honor of her heroic ride. There is a statue of Sybil Ludington, by sculptor Anna Wyatt Huntington, outside the Danbury Library.

George Washington and Prisoners of War

By Denis Mueller

The recent prisoner of war scandals and new revelations about 26 prisoners under US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan who have died, in what investigators have concluded were acts nothing short of criminal homicide, brings to mind a book by David Hackett Fischer. Kishcher's book illustrates how George Washington rescued the American Revolution by defeating Hessian mercenaries in early battles in New Jersey. But what is particularly relevant for today is how Washington dealt with prisoners of war and in doing so set new standards for the more humane treatment of war prisoners.

"What Fischer has to say is: "According to the laws of European Wars, quarter was the privilege of being allowed to surrender and to become a prisoner. By custom and tradition, soldiers in Europe believed that they had the right to extend quarter or deny it. In these laws of war no captive had the inalienable right to be taken prison, or even to life itself... With some exceptions, American leaders believed that quarter should be extended to all combatants as a matter of right…Americans were outraged when quarter was denied to their soldiers." In a reaction to the British troops who murdered seven soldiers who had surrendered only to get their skulls bashed in Fischer concludes: "The Americans recovered the mutilated corpses and were shocked."

But Washington did not respond with blind retaliation or revenge, it only strengthened his resolve, wrote Fischer: "Washington ordered that Hessian captives would be treated as human beings with the same rights for humanity for which Americans were striving. The Hessians were amazed to be treated with decency and even kindness. At first they could not understand it." So here you have it. In our tradition we are the first people to bring this kind of humane treatment to prisoners of war only to see ourselves descend into the kind of barbaric treatment that our founder fathers fought against.

I know war is hell and standards change but when you have the Attorney General of the United States say that the Geneva Convention's rules on treatment of prisoners is a quaint notion; I ask Mr. Attorney general to read a little bit about his history. It is against any rules of conduct to torture people to the point that they die in your captivity. We call that murder. In the United States our humane treatment in war has a tradition, which was a part of the founding father's beliefs in a more just society. We have fallen short, to be sure, many times but this is a tradition we should be proud of and these recent deaths we should be ashamed of as a nation.

Source: David Hackett, Washington's Crossing.

The Boston Massacre

The town of Boston was a very uneasy city throughout the 1760's. This uneasiness quickly turned to belligerence in the early part of 1770. Tensions had been mounting from the beginning of the year with various clashes between British sympathizers and colonists. However, in early March the tensions erupted into bloodshed.

On March 5, 1770 a small group of colonists were up to their usual sport of tormenting British soldiers. By many accounts there was a great deal of taunting that eventually lead to an escalation of hostilities. The sentry in front of the Custom House eventually lashed out at the colonists which brought more colonists to the scene. In fact, someone began ringing the church bells which usually signified a fire. The sentry called for help, setting up the clash which we now call the “Boston Massacre”.

A group of soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, came to the rescue of the lone sentry. Captain Preston and his detachment of seven or eight men were quickly surrounded. All attempts to calm the crowd proved useless. At this point, the accounts of the event vary drastically. Apparently, a soldier fired a musket into the crowd, immediately followed by more shots. This action left several wounded and five dead including an African-American named Crispus Attucks. The crowd quickly dispersed, and the soldiers went back to their barracks. These are the facts we do know.

However, many uncertainties surround this important historical event:

· Did the soldiers fire with provocation?
· Did they fire on their own?
· Was Captain Prescott guilty of ordering his men to fire into a crowd of civilians?
· Was he innocent and being used by men like Samuel Adams to confirm the oft-claimed tyranny of England?

The only evidence historians have to try and determine Captain Prescott's guilt or innocence is the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Unfortunately, many of the statements conflict with each other and with Captain Prescott's own account. We must try to piece together a hypothesis from these conflicting sources.

Captain Prescott's Account:
· Captain Prescott claimed he ordered his men to load their weapons.
· Captain Prescott claimed he heard the crowd yelling fire.
· Captain Prescott claimed they were attacked by heavy clubs and snowballs.
· Captain Prescott claimed a soldier was hit by a stick and then fired.
· Captain Prescott claimed the other soldiers fired in response to the colonist attack.
· Captain Prescott claimed he reprimanded his men for firing into the crowd without orders.

Eyewitness Statements in Support of Captain Prescott's Statement:
· Witnesses including Peter Cunningham claimed they heard Captain Prescott order his men to load their weapons.
· Witnesses including Richard Palmes claimed they asked Captain Prescott if he intended to fire and he said no.
· Witnesses including William Wyatt claimed the crowd was calling for the soldiers to fire.
· Witnesses including James Woodall claimed they saw a stick thrown and hit a soldier, which prompted him to fire, quickly followed by several other soldiers.
· Witnesses including Peter Cunningham claimed an officer other than Prescott was behind the men and that he ordered the soldiers to fire.
· Witnesses including William Sawyer claimed the crowd threw snowballs at the soldiers.
· Witnesses including Matthew Murray claimed they did not hear Captain Prescott order his men to fire.
· William Wyatt claimed that Captain Prescott reprimanded his men for firing into the crowd.
· Edward Hill claimed that Captain Prescott made a soldier put away his weapon instead of allowing him to continue to shoot.

Eyewitness Statements Opposed to Captain Prescott's Statement:
· Witnesses including Daniel Calef claimed that Captain Prescott ordered his men to fire.
· Henry Knox claimed the soldiers were hitting and pushing with their muskets.
· Joseph Petty claimed he did not see any sticks thrown at the soldiers until after the firing.
· Robert Goddard claimed he heard Captain Prescott curse his men for not firing when ordered.
· Several soldiers including Hugh White claimed they heard the order to fire and believed they were obeying his commands.

The facts are unclear. There is some evidence that seems to point to Captain Prescott's innocence. Many people close to him did not hear him give the order to fire despite his order to load the muskets. In the confusion of a crowd throwing snowballs, sticks and insults at the soldiers, it would be easy for them to think they received an order to fire. In fact, as noted in the testimony, many in the crowd were calling them to fire. Because of the lack of evidence, it is not hard to see why the jury found Captain Prescott innocent. The effect of this verdict was much greater than the Crown could ever have guessed. The leaders of the rebellion were able to use it as proof of Britain's tyranny. For example, Paul Revere created a famous engraving that he entitled, "The Bloody Massacre perpetrated in King Street". This was not the only instance of unrest and violence before the revolution, but the Boston Massacre is often pointed to as the event that presaged the Revolutionary War. Like the Maine, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin, the Boston Massacre became the rallying cry for the patriots.

Crispus Attucks, 1723 - 1770

In what later would be called the Boston Massacre, Crispus Attucks became known for being the first to be killed in the American Revolution.

Little for certain is known about Attucks, except that he was an escaped slave. It is believed that he was of African and Natick or Nantucket Indian descent. Historians also believe that he was the same escaped slave that had been referred to by William Brown in the Boston Gazette and Weekly Journal twenty years before the Boston Massacre. According to the advertisement, Attucks was mulatto, about 27 years old, and was named Crispus. The advertisement also offered a reward for his return and cautioned seamen to refrain from assisting in his escape.

However, seamen did not adhere to Brown’s caution. From the time Attucks escaped until his death, he worked as a Boston sailor on a whaling crew and as a rope maker in Boston.

Not surprisingly, prior to the Boston Massacre, tension between the Boston laborers and the British troops, who often worked part-time for lower wages, was high. So, on March 2, 1770, with anxiety high, an altercation occurred between rope makers and three British soldiers. By March 5, tension escalated when a group of colonists began taunting, heckling, and mocking British soldiers. The soldiers fired on the colonists after one soldier was hit. When it was all over, Attucks was the first to be killed. Attucks and the four others who were killed, were considered the first casualties of the fight for independence and they became martyrs. Attucks and the other victims were buried in the Park Street cemetery.

The six soldiers responsible for the five deaths were tried for their murders. Their lawyer, John Adams, who would later become the second President of the United States, argued that Attucks had attacked the soldiers first and he also portrayed him as a villain. When the trial was over, all the soldiers were acquitted.

In 1858, black abolitionists created the Crispus Attucks Day. In 1888, in the midst of protest by those who believed that Attucks was a villain, the Crispus Attucks Monument was built on the Boston Common.

- Jessica McElrath

African-American spy

James Armistead, a Virginia slave, deeply admired the Marquis de Lafayette, a dashing French nobleman who had joined the cause of the American Revolution. So much did he want to serve Lafayette, that Armistead successfully implored his master to permit him to join the Frenchman in the fight against England.

The British were actively recruiting American slaves to their cause by promising them freedom should the Americans be defeated. So General Charles Cornwallis was not surprised when Armistead appeared before him to offer his services to the British. Little did Cornwallis know, but Armistead secretly informed Lafayette of British plans, which ultimately proved of significant aid to the Americans in the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown. After the battle, Cornwallis was surprised to see Armistead conversing with Lafayette. Only then did he realize Armistead had been a spy.

When the war ended, Armistead was granted his freedom by the Virginia legislature, which said of him that "at the peril of his life, he found the means to visit the British camp, and there perfectly did many jobs." Armistead ultimately adopted the name of his hero, becoming James Armistead Lafayette. Today his portrait can been seen in the Valentine Museum, in Richmond, Virginia.

Revolutionary Spies

By Colleen Kelly
Posted Wednesday, April 6, 2005

Getting accurate information about your enemy is important in every war. But it was critical to the Continental Army in the American Revolution.

In 1776, George Washington needed spies--and fast. With an army of just 4,000 men, Washington couldn't afford to gamble on guesses about what the British might do next. So he ordered his officers to collect intelligence about British troop movements. "Leave no stone unturned," he wrote, "nor do not stick at expense."

Less than a week later, Nathan Hale, a captain in the Continental Army, volunteered to go undercover as a civilian to find out where the British troops were headed. He was to pose as a schoolteacher (which Hale had been before the war) and travel to the British camp in New York.

The British discovered Hale within days of his arrival in New York, and their commander ordered him hanged. On September 22, 1776, the British officers who witnessed Hale's execution remarked on the 21-year-old officer's courage. When the hangman prodded Hale to confess his crime against the crown, Hale said his only regret was that he had but one life to lose for his country.

Of course, men who were obviously patriots couldn't mingle easily with the Tories who were still loyal to the king of England. That job fell to seemingly ordinary folks who were ready and willing to feed information to the Continental Army.

One was an Irish-born tailor, who collected tidbits from his dandy British patrons. Another was a farmwife who used the laundry she hung out to dry to signal a neighboring spy. Another was the editor of a loyalist newspaper, James Rivington, who used his pro-Tory publication as a front. Rivington was so clever it took historians nearly 200 years to prove he was a spy.

The commander-in-chief got pretty good at the spy game, too. Washington arranged to have fake letters picked up by men he knew were British spies, who then transmitted the false information. (The British had spies all over the place. It was decades before anyone figured out that Ben Franklin's personal secretary was one.)

By far the most famous spy of the Revolutionary War was General Benedict Arnold. In 1779, Arnold was an American hero, lauded for his courage in combat. But he was also sending out feelers to British brass, offering to work as a mole. When he was later given command of the most important fort in the colonies, West Point, he offered to give it away--along with its 3,000 soldiers--for 20,000 pounds.

By September 1780, the British were readying troops to take the fort--until another spy of theirs got caught. Three militiamen stopped a traveler outside Tarrytown, New York, and found maps of West Point stuffed in his socks. The traveler, who later admitted he was a British officer named Major John Andre, had just finalized the arrangements with Arnold and was headed back to report.

Arnold managed to slip away just hours before his treachery was revealed, leaving his wife to the mercy of the Continental Army and leaving Andre to hang. He fought for the British for about a year and then moved to England. He never seemed to comprehend the enormity of his disloyalty. He actually petitioned Congress for the pay he earned as an officer before he betrayed his country.

--Colleen Kelly

91326 (Northridge Weather Forecast, CA)

To post your opinion regarding this page, please click on

A POINT OF VIEW, and post your opinion in my Forum.

Meet the Minutemen

By Jeffery VailPosted Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Revolutionary Spies

By Jeffery Vail
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2005