Liberty Books

The product I received was in great condition and did not take long arriving. Very satisfied.

I am currently using this textbook for my Constitutional Law class at Winthrop University, and i would like to comment that the book is very well written and easily read. The one problem that i have is that the Opinions of the court are not complete, but only the highlights have been stated, as completely understandable, but I find the extra information also informative when trying to write papers on the Opinions, not just the highlights. I otherwise think that the book is superb and quite helpful in my class.

As the title of the book implies, the book is truly about an unvanquished soul. Inspite of all the adversities he has had to face, Apu's soul is not defeated. I wouldn't want to spoil your enjoyment by waxing eloquent over it, Read it, you are going to be moved beyond words.

Aparajito is sequel to Pather Panchali. You have to read Aparijito if you liked Pather Panchali. Satyajit Ray's film Apartijito and Apur Sansar look like patchy collages compared to the treatment of characters in the novels.

Aparajito starts with Apu's adult struggles in city life. You would expect the character to somehow come over the unending series of tragedy that he goes through, but Bibhutibhushan takes his time, like a life really running its urban grind. I kept peeking through latter pages to see if Apu was ever going to have that happy turn of events that novels are supposed to have. But what you get is not a tale but Apu's own experience of slow discovery of beauty in life. There is no story. There is only a character that refuses to give in, that lives "lives" of drudgery, passion, freedom with the adamant spirit of a crusader. Nothing earth-shattering except the will to believe that life is and will be what he wants to see it as, not what the city has defined for others.

Gopa Majumdar's choice of words is decidedly British, and therefore, at some points, knots the easy flow of the passages. Nevertheless, the beauty of the original seems to come through the translation because the strength of the book is not in the language used but in the detailed exploration of its charming charcater, Apu.

I'm not a big fan of defense lawyers but John Contini is an exception. His story is a story of his failings as much as the failings of the man he defended. Both are an excellent display of God's forgiveness and redemtion in the heart of man.

One you start reading Danger Road, you won't be able to stop. This book chronicles a real life tragedy, the legal aftermath of the murder of three drug dealers. If you have ever wanted to know what the REAL legal justice system is all about, this book is for you. You don't need to be a legal expert to understand what is going on in the courtroom. The author was the defense attorney in this case who explains what is happening, why it is happening, and the real world impact these proceedings have on the people's lives who were affected in this case. What I found most intriguing was the way we get to know what the attorney was thinking as the trial evolved. This is a must read for anyone who wants to know the truth about the American criminal justice system. Turn off your cell phone; you won't be able to put this book down.

But it almost hurts Lucy Durmast. She has been arrested for murder of one of her father's employees, and responds to the accusation with total silence. Sloan is put on the case because of the demise of the officer that had been previously investigating, and he has to determine whether Lucy is indeed guilty. It brings a whole bunch of things to the Berebury Police detachment including the African kingdom of Dlasa and some high profile civil engineering projects. Even though I figured out the means and who did the deed, it was still an interesting read as all of Ms. Aird's books are.

A word of advice: get the unabridged narration by Robin Bailey, whose voice is ideally suited for reading a cozy British murder mystery, with a fine command of accents and the ability to give each character his or her own voice.

The Crown vs. Lucy Mirabel Durmast wouldn't have been any of Sloan's business, if it weren't for two things: Trevor Porritt of Calleford Division suffering permanent brain damage after being hit by a burglar, and Lucy's determination to stand mute to everyone, not even engaging a defense counsel. Sloan inherits Porritt's caseload, and Lucy's refusal to speak, let alone plead, causes enough agitation among the forces of the law that Sloan and Crosby are instructed to go over the ground again and find out what's going on.

The victim, Kenneth Carline, was a young structural engineer for Durmast's, the civil engineering firm run by Lucy's father; he crashed his car after lunch with Lucy, due to being poisoned. (Bill Durmast is out of the country overseeing the building of a new Dhlasan capital city in Africa, and neither the British envoy nor Durmast's second-in-command back home are about to mess up the contract by spilling the beans.) The police, as it happens, know Durmast's quite well; not only did they build the Palshaw tunnel, which helped out Traffic Division, but the tunnel opening ceremony was a disaster: a gang of protesters for the nearby nuclear waste disposal plant used it to get a big banner photographed instead of the tunnel behind the banner.

Lucy isn't saying anything to anyone, but Sloan and Crosby manage to find a lot of things that don't quite tie up: anti-nuclear leaflets in Carline's car; a college friendship between Carline and one of the princes of Dhlasa, who's now missing; the lack of evidence of any personal attachment between Lucy and Carline (who had just announced his engagement to someone else); the mystery of how the demonstrators got at the tunnel access via a gate that should have been locked. Then someone else connected with the case is murdered, and the one person who couldn't have done it is Lucy, in prison for contempt of court while awaiting the resumption of her trial for murder. (She couldn't get bail anyway, since she wasn't speaking and therefore hadn't asked for it.)

But if she didn't poison Carline in the chili con carne at lunch, who could have within the pathologist's time limit? Especially since he must have been nearly flying to get his car from lunch at her father's house, where he was picking up blueprints, to the official closing of the tunnel contract at Palshaw at 2 o'clock - even though he never made it.

Excellent character development, as always; while Lucy won't talk, we are told part of the story from her point of view. Her best friend Cecilia seems like a good, loyal ally, with her own life as both an artist in pottery, a mother of twin infant sons, and the wife of John Allsworthy, of the manor house at Braffle Episcopi. And there's the angle of international intrigue, as the hunt for Prince Aturu ensues while the Berebury CID tries to decide whether the Mgongwala contract had anything to do with Carline's death.

You can find both the Disquisition and the Discourse @ http://www.constitution.org/jcc/jcc.htm.
Then read these impressive bodies of words and decide for yourself.
Personally, I wish that all of this could be neatly summed up in 10,000 words or less - was it really necessary for Daniel to exhaust over 100,000 lexes to say what he wanted to say?

John C. Calhoun, born in 1782, was an original "War Hawk" at the outbreak of the War of 1812, Senator from South Carolina, Vice President of the United States; he is also one of the more interesting political thinkers in American history.

John C. Calhoun's key concern in this volume was the threat of an oppressive national government. He argued: "But government, although intended to protect and preserve society, has itself a strong tendency to disorder and abuse of its powers, as all experience and almost every page of history testify." Calhoun claims that societies are made up of numerous groupings, each with its own interest. The end result? There is ". . .nothing more easy than to pervert its powers into instruments to aggrandize and enrich one or more interests by oppressing and impoverishing the others. . ." Consequently, some instrumentality must be developed ". . .to prevent any one interest or combination of interests from using the powers of government to aggrandize itself at the expense of others." One of the intereests he wished to protect was, of course, slavery. He creates an interesting argument for one of the worst causes possible.

Use of the "numerical majority" to make decisions essentially can suppress minorities. He believed that the idea of the concurrent majority would reduce the possibility of tyranny. In Calhoun's own words, the essence of the concurrent majority is: "The necessary consequence of taking the sense of the community as the concurrent majority is. . .to give each interest or portion of the community a negative on the others. It is this mutual negative among its various conflicting interests which invests each with the power of protecting itself, and places the rights and safety of each where only they can be securely placed, under its own guardianship."

Critics, of course, would contend that the concurrent majority would make it difficult to take any significant action. Calhoun felt that this plan would actually foster unity. In a key passage, Calhoun said: "The concurrent majority. . .tends to unite the most opposite and conflicting interests and to blend the whole in one common attachment to the country. By giving to each interest, or portion, the power of self-protection, all strife and struggle between them for ascendancy is prevented, and thereby not only every feeling calculated to weaken the attachment to the whole is suppressed, but the individual and the social feelings are made to unite in one common devotion to country. Each sees and feels that it can best promote its own prosperity by conciliating the good will and promoting the prosperity of the others."

Calhoun's relevance for constitutional principles in the United States? Obviously, his work directly addresses the Constitution's concept of federalism. Calhoun's vision was far different from that enunciated by the Supreme Court over time. Whereas the Supreme Court emphasized the Supremacy Clause, Calhoun rejected that concept as violating his understanding of the Constitution and its origins. His conclusion was that the United States was a confederation. This work is one of the more creative bits of American political thought. While one can decry Calhoun for his support of slavery, one has to recognize the intriguing arguments that he makes in this slender volume.

This summer my parents decided my grammar needed "help". Therefore my father bought this book off of EBay for me. Even though I would rather be doing other things this summer, this book is extremely helpful yet boring. There are 6 parts to this book each of these parts explore different parts of the English language. One of the advantages to this book is that they list exercises after each section so you are able to practice what they teach.

This textbook is awesome. I helps you learn about all subjects in Grammar. It tells you how to write something gramatically correct. I gives you plenty of exercises to learn all of this and to study for the tests. I just think that this is the best English textbook in the history of textbooks.

This book is admittedly written from a left leaning group, Americans United. But with that bias, it does examine closely the history of the separation of church and state through the major cases that were decided at the Supreme Court. It also goes through and invalidates the majority (if not all) the arguments that the religious right makes to try to get more religion into the laws and schools. It also makes excellent arguments on why there should be separation of church and state and explains why if there is no separation, both church and state would suffer and become weaker.

This book is very anti religious right and anti George W. Bush and his administration, so be forewarned.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that many consider the most important of the rights specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Two men who are fervent believers in the importance of religious freedom are Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy and Rev. Barry Lynn. These two men are Constitutional crusaders who joined forces to produce this book, with contributions that include political/activist information as well as historical facts and legal analysis of the church state issue; where it presently stands and where it is headed.

First Freedom First opens with a pronouncement stressing the present crisis that religious freedom faces as the various factions of the Religious Right continue to erode religious freedom and continue to push the nation slowly toward a more theocratic form of government. Once the book has grabbed the reader's full attention in the introduction, it proceeds to talk about the issue of religious freedom complete with historical perspectives on religious freedom; the politicization of religion by certain groups; the debunking of popular church/state separation myths; the different ways that the Religious Right has tried to change the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution; and the importance of protecting the integrity of religion by keeping it beyond the reach of government control. Gaddy writes convincingly as he confronts the common falsehoods surrounding the meaning of the First Amendment and as he offers different means to promote religion by keeping it out of the political realm.

Lynn's part of the book is only slightly different. In this, the second part of the book, more history of the church/state issue is offered, complete with court cases and outcomes, as well as some commentary on the pressing issues of the day and how the Religious Right has exploited these issues for political gain. Issues as diverse as global warming and stem cell research are examined, with the book pointing out the possible motivations behind the Religious Right on some of the important issues of our day. In some instances, the motives seem pretty clear and it is easy to see why some members of these different organizations feel the way they do. But other issues are not so clear- cut, like global warming, for example. Most of the Religious Right's leadership either doesn't believe global warming is real; doesn't care about the consequences, or both. How global warming and its long- term implications are deserving of such a rebuke by the Religious Right is uncertain, since they have little or nothing to do with faith and morals, but the book offers a few possibilities so that the reader can gain a better understanding of the Religious Right mindset.

I like the inclusion of educational material relating to the U.S. Constitution and the meaning behind some of the legal terms that often lead to confusion among the members of the public. Those who have been active in the defense of religious liberty are fully aware of the meaning behind terms like "Establishment Clause" and "Free Exercise Clause", but many in the general public are often confused about the precise meaning of these terms. The book spells them out, clarifying their meaning with examples from history and with easy to understand explanations. But what is probably even more valuable than the education lesson on church/state separation are the sections of the book that offer answers to common questions posed to religious freedom advocates. Many books have examined the First Amendment and its meaning, so this isn't really anything new. But the sections of the book that directly respond to critics of religious freedom are very helpful to the pro- First Amendment activist. In these parts of the book, answers to common questions about church/state separation are offered along with responses to some of the common myths about religious freedom and those who support church/state separation. These are very helpful to the religious freedom activist, for they help to arm the serious proponent of religious liberty with sensible, respectful responses to the common misconceptions about this important right.

Many examples of church and state entanglements and their results are included in this book and while some of them are well- known, they never cease to amaze. From the Terri Schiavo case to Bush's so- called "Faith Based Initiative", the book points out the illogical, hypocritical, and often anti- freedom stance that is so commonly adopted by the Religious Right and its members. It is interesting when you consider that those in the Religious Right are supposedly pro- family to the extreme and want government to stay completely clear of any decision relating to family life, yet they have no problem allowing government intervention into one of a few key areas. I suppose they think they can have their own version of freedom and curtail the freedom of others. But as history has shown, this approach doesn't work. We can't have it both ways. If government is permitted to control certain aspects of family life, then it can ultimately control any aspect of family life. What was once the domain of the family members will now become the duty of government to oversee, to regulate, and ultimately, to control. The best prevention is to avoid allowing governments this level of power in the first place. By keeping government in check by adhering to the strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, democracy will thrive, individual liberty will flourish, and tyranny will never become reality.

Overall, First Freedom First is a very good, enjoyable, educational book by Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy and Rev. Barry Lynn. The book could use a little more length and I felt it came to a close too quickly, just when it was getting warmed up. I also like the resource section and would have liked it even more if it had included organizations and web sites to consult for further action. Still, First Freedom First is a very good, very readable book about the importance of religious liberty and the significance of Jefferson's Wall of Separation between church and state. Despite what some may lead you to believe, rights are not up for a vote. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion to all, regardless of belief and regardless of popularity, as well as the guarantee to be non- religious, if that is what one chooses. Some would like to see the wall of separation removed, but our past experience as Americans proves that both government and religion are, in fact, strengthened when they are kept separate.

Religious liberty is a critical right, and without it, many other rights would slowly dissolve. Religious freedom has helped create the most religiously pluralistic nation in the world. Let's hope the United States continues to embrace this freedom by keeping the wall of separation firmly in place.

I was more familiar with German philosophy, as an intellectual reaction to the French revolution, than with the French and Italian thinkers who are also discussed in the radio lectures which are included in this book. I also have the book, KARL MARX by Isaiah Berlin, and noticed some of the same themes, though this book is mainly concerned with a half century prior to the writings of Karl Marx. I try to see the humor in history, so when Isaiah Berlin says that Helvetius's principal work, published in 1758, "was found to be so atheistical, so heretical, that it was condemned both by Church and by State, and was burnt by the public hangman," (p. 11) I'm not surprised that this might be "the first clear formulation of the principle of utilitarianism." (p. 13).

Rousseau is the philosopher that Berlin blames most frequently for stating opposition to those who are overly refined. This includes "All those nineteenth century thinkers who are violently anti-intellectual, and in a sense anti-cultural, indeed . . . including Nietzsche himself, are the natural descendants of Rousseau." (p. 41). The Germans were not particularly well off, politically or materially at the time, so some tried to advance themselves by studying Kant. "Therefore, Kant says, the most sacred object in the universe, the only thing which is entirely good, is the good will, that is to say the free, moral, spiritual self within the body." (p. 57). Fichte's biggest contribution to 20th century political thought in Germany has been on leadership as a solution for a crisis, and Berlin considers the hero: "The favored image is that of Luther: there he stands, he cannot move, because he serves his inner ideal." (p. 65) But Fichte went in a philosophical direction. "Fichte gradually adopts the idea that the individual himself is nothing, that man is nothing without society, that man is nothing without the group, that the human being hardly exists at all." (p. 67). The first three pages of notes are mainly citations. The notes on Fichte cover seven pages and include additional phrases from Fichte's work not mentioned in Berlin's lectures but noted on the manuscript. This provides the opportunity to read bits like, "the natural institution of the State ends this independence provisionally and melts the separate parts into one whole, until finally morality recreates the whole species into one." (p. 166).

The notes on Hegel provide a citation for `slaughter-bench.' Hegel gets credit for a new way of looking at the history of everything which is so inspired by greatness that "To see a vast human upheaval and then to condemn it because it is cruel or because it is unjust to the innocent is for Hegel profoundly foolish and contemptible." (p. 92). Also, "Hegel's most original achievement was to invent the very idea of the history of thought." (p. 99). From there, it figures that Saint-Simon would expect the French to produce rationally a society. "For him, history is a story of living men trying to develop their faculties as richly and many-sidedly as possible." (p. 112).

On the other hand, I also have Isaiah Berlin's book, RUSSIAN THINKERS, and Joseph de Maistre, the last lecture topic for this book, was a source for Tolstoy. "Maistre is fascinated by the spectacle of war." (p. 139). "Tolstoy read Maistre because Maistre lived in Petersburg during the period in which he was interested, and he echoes his description of what a real battle is like, describing the experience of people present at the battle rather than giving the orderly, tidied-up account constructed later by eye-witnesses or historians." (p. 140). After that, the phrase, "says Maistre in a mocking manner," (p. 141) applied to the ideas in the preceding lectures, establishes that "No metaphysical magic eye will detect abstract entities called rights, not derived from either human or divine authority." (pp. 143-4). I think the last lecture is far easier to understand than the others.

Isaiah Berlin has no need to be introduced.
He was one of the most brilliant philosophical minds of the XX century and is still famous for his remarkably clear prose and acute analyses.
*
The first book I chanced to read by him was the exceptional "The Roots of Romanticism", a study on the decline of the Enlightenment ideas and the development all over Europe of a different - more emotional - sensibility.
I was surprised and fascinated by his acumen.
A terse and unassuming style, introducing complex arguments with few simple words and remarkable composure.
An unwavering faith that ideas are not something outside history, but are the deep bone-structure of human events (a conviction he matured probably under the influence of Heinrich Heine).
The rare ability to surprise the reader introducing age-old arguments in unexpected and unusual ways, eventually drawing him to unforeseen conclusions.
All these features are present as well in this essay.
*
This work is the transcription of a series of BBC radio broadcasts held in 1952 about "the enemies of human freedom". Actually most of the original records have been lost but for the one dedicated to Rousseau and so the text has been partly restored with the use and collation of extant - sometimes shaky - transcripts.
This may account for a certain roughness of the style, specially visible in the first part.
*
In "The Roots of Romanticism" Berlin shows the development and the fascination of the new ideas and their impact on European history: the scene is immense and philosophy intertwines with history and literature.
In "Freedom and Its Betrayal" the effort is focused on a single theme, considered in its negative value (betrayal) showing how the "liberal" and individualistic modern concept of liberty has not just one, but many intellectual "enemies".
The conferences expand a theme that is central in his thinking and investigate the ideas of six seminal thinkers who lived just before or not long after the French Revolution: Helvetius, Rousseau, Fichte, Hegel, Saint-Simon and De Maistre.
*
This is not the place to consider in depth the charges moved to each one of them (I will be glad to discuss specific issues with any reader who wants to write me), but some features of Berlin's approach are remarkable.
Every introduction is more a presentation of the thinker's relevant ideas and the indictment is not directed to the author, but to the logical consequences of his ideas, with only occasional mention to the - alleged - historical outcome.
Every thinker is even treated with sympathy and curiosity - an almost reverential gratitude, because philosophy to Berlin is not strictly speaking a place to administer condemnation or to grant salvation, but the place dedicated to constant and peaceful evaluation.
*
While the book is not so stylish and captivating as "The Roots of Romanticism", it is nonetheless hugely interesting to all those interested in the history of ideas.
Occasionally and notwithstanding a sloppy prose, you can find true cameos, in which inspiration and passion bestow an unusual poetical force.
One especially deserves citation for the faint echo of Montaigne's skepticism and the elegance of its repetition:

"Nature, and she alone, teaches philosophers what the true ends of men are.
True, Nature at all times speaks with too many voices.
She said to Spinoza that she was a logical system, but to Leibniz that she was a congeries of souls.
She said to Diderot that the world was a machine with cords, pulleys and springs, whereas to Herder she said that it was an organic living whole.
To Montequieu she talked about the infinite value of variety, to Helvetius of unalterable uniformity.
To Rousseau she declared that she had been perverted by civilization, sciences and the art, whereas to d'Alembert she promised to reveal their secret.
Condorcet and Paine perceived that she implanted inalienable rights in man; to Bentham she says this is mere "bawling upon paper" - "nonsense upon stilts".
To Berkley she reveals herself as the language of God to man.
To d'Holbach she said that there was no God and Churches were conspiracies.
Pope, Shaftesbury, Rousseau see nature as a marvelous harmony. Hegel sees her as a glorious field in which great armies clash by night.
And De Maistre sees her as an agony of blood and fear of self immolation.
What is Nature? And what is meant by Natural?"(pag 54 in my edition)
*
I'm used to suggest other books to readers interested in the same topic. This time I will only suggest
- "The Roots of Romanticism" by the same author
- "The Power of Ideas" (see my review if interested) - a collection of short essays that is flawed by the dubious choice of the curator.
*
You are most welcome if you can suggest other books about the same theme or just share ideas and comments!
Thanks for reading.

This is not a book for those looking for arguments to defend this or that ideological position. Frank Knight was far too critical and independent minded to ever be a defender of ideology. He had no interest in being a mere propagandist for free market economics or the mantras of classical liberalism. Although Knight regarded himself as an old-fashioned, nineteenth century liberal, he was well aware of the faults of classical liberalism, and he wrote about them with a candor and honesty sure to annoy the true believers of that creed. In fact, several of the essays in "Freedom and Reform" are critiques of what used to be staples of liberal belief: freedom, free markets, individualism, etc. Knight argues that, however important these ideas may be in the context of a free and democratic society, we would be lying to ourselves if we did not acknowledge their flaws. Individualism, Knight points out, is based on the "fundamental error" of taking the individual as given. What exists in society is not so much "individualism," but, more to the point, of what Knight calls "familism." "Some sort of family life, and far beyond that, some kind of wider primary-group and culture-group life, of a considerable degree of stability, must be taken as they are, as data," he insists. There is an important point here that has not been understood by liberal rationalists. Human beings are in fact social creatures, and if they are deprived of the social bonds of the family, they will search for a substitute elsewhere. Is this not one of the major causes behind multiculturalism and the group-fanaticism of the Left? Rootless individuals, deprived of familial bonds, look to race or gender or sexual orientation to provide what the family no longer can.

Knight's basic approach is to supplement the rationalistic analysis typical of social science (especially economics) with a strong dose of common sense. Anyone with even a moderate sense of social reality knows that human beings are not the rational calculators or profit maximizers envisioned by economists. "It has become clear that people individually, and much more so in collectivities, are not very rational," Knight points out. "Man typically describes himself as an intelligent animal-Homo sapiens; but the main significance of this seems to be that man loves to compliment himself and considers this the highest compliment. 'Intelligence' is a word of numerous meanings, and with respect to all of them man is both a stupid animal and a romantic, preferring emotion to reason and fiction to truth." By keeping the limitations of human nature in mind at all times, Knight is able to see through the cant of the social sciences. He is perceptive not only in regards to libertarians and classical liberals, but even more so to radicals and left-liberals. His review essay on Dewey's "Liberalism and Social Action" is devastating. And his analysis of Marxism in the essay "Ethics and Economic Reform" is one of the best ever. The essential hypocrisy and nihilism of the Marxist creed has rarely been stated with such force and clarity. "For in plain factual appraisal, what [Marxians] are doing is more catastrophically evil than treason, or poisoning the wells, or other acts commonly placed at the head of the list of crimes," Knight declared. "The moralisation of destruction, and of combat with a view to destruction, goes with the kind of hero-worship that merges into devil worship. Such phenomena show that human nature has potentialities that are horrible." Knight wrote this in 1939, long before the atrocities of Stalin were well understood in the West. It is to be regretted that, even to this day, there are professors in American universities incapable of understanding the points Knight makes concerning the Marxist creed.

For those reading this who may be unfamiliar with Mr. Knight, let me just say that he was responsible for creating the reputation of the "Chicago school" of economics, later popularized by Milton Friedman.

For those who might be prejudiced against the perceived conservative bent of the Chicago school of thought, I will hasten to say that these essays offer very little comfort for the defenders of consevatism. Indeed they offer little comfort to the holder of seemingly any position. The great strengths of his thought were in his great perception of the popular lines of political/economic thought of the 20th century, and his unapologetic criticism of all of these ideas.

This however, to me, is also the weakness of his thought. He seems to want to stand outside the fray, having no position of his own. This doesn't really get in the way of enjoying his essays though. I do have to admit that many of my thoughts about political ideas have been seriously challenged by this work and think that he brings a valuable contribution the debate about the future of American politics, even some 60 years after origianal publication

This PBS Special based entertainment is great for adolescents!
I bought it for my neices and nephews and hope they will enjoy it as much as I have!

This is the sequel to 'Justice For All' and is the 2nd book in the L.K. series. Now I will review it for you.(Its about 3 episodes)
Liberty Or Death!-When their printing press breaks, theyre in luck when Moses says he made an offer on a new one. The problem? They just have to travel to Williamsburg, V.A. to pick it up. So its off to Virginia! Upon their arrival, they witness a slave auction. James and Henri hear Patrick Henrys gonna do a speech at the House of Burgesses, so they go there, while Sarah and Moses get the press. But to their surprise, no ones there! Just two slave women who tell them that the Earl of Dunmore(or something) shut it down. So they find out that instead, Mr. Henry will make his speech at St. Johns church in Richmond. When everybody gets back and are ready to go, Moses sees his younger brother at the slave auction. He is sold to Richmond, at the Abernathy Plantation. So they decide to go to Richmond too. But its very dangerous for Moses to be in the south, where slavery thrives. Can they get Cato(his brother) and also return safely to Philadelphia AND hear his speech?

Midnight Ride of Paul Revere-James and Sarah are on their way to Boston to deliver a message to a friend of Dr.Franklins about the British after they accidentally injure Moses when they thought he was a burglar. They go by way of ship, a small, small boat, and a british frigiate forces them to land about 8 miles south of their destination. They have one occurance which leads them to the truth-the british ARENT leaving boston. So now they must hurry! When they DO tell Dr. Warren(the friend), he gets William DAwes and Paul Revere to go riding at midnight. James and Sarah get involved too, but do they really know what they are getting themselves into?

Shot Heard Round the World-After staying at this hotel-place, James and Sarah are exhausted from their ride. Sarah, upon knowing her cousin Tom is stationed with the british nearby, goes out to look for him. James stays behind and goes with the americans. But when they cross paths again and the first shot is fired, its become clear that this is war. And when they meet again at the bridge at Lexington and Concord, the first harsh fighting begins. Sarah loses Tom, and James and Sarah become a little closer, in my view. IN other views, Dr. Franklin returns from London with a new view of England.