It is an unlikely union. America’s Cincinnatus—George Washington—and America’s Michelangelo—the Italian painter Constantino Brumidi—never met. Washington was born in 1732, a third-generation Virginian. Brumidi was born in Rome in 1805 and emigrated to the United States in 1849, becoming a naturalized citizen soon after. Yet both left indelible marks on the American republic. Washington shaped the nation like no other military or political leader before or since, earning the title “America’s Indispensable Man.” Brumidi, who honed his craft painting frescoes and murals in Rome, would leave his imprint throughout the most important building in the country—the U.S. Capitol—earning his own distinction as the Capitol’s indispensable artist. America’s Indispensable Man—and the Capitol’s “Those beautiful hallways on the Senate side of the Capitol? Brumidi,” the U.S. Capitol Historical Society wrote. “The historic committee rooms and fancy reception rooms? Brumidi. The decorative band wrapping around the Rotunda with the scenes from American history? That would be Brumidi, too.” Brumidi’s crowning achievement—among many throughout the Capitol painted over a 25-year period—is the mural known as “The Apotheosis of Washington.” Painted in just 11 months after the completion of the new Capitol dome in 1864, the massive fresco is suspended 180 feet above the Rotunda floor and spans 4,664 square feet. How did an Italian immigrant earn such a commission? And why was George Washington chosen as the central figure of Brumidi’s masterpiece? To answer the first question, it helps to answer the second—and to reflect on Washington’s singular role in the founding of our nation. “Washington is the mightiest name of earth,” Abraham Lincoln declared in 1842. “To add brightness to the sun, or glory to the name of Washington, is alike impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name, and in its naked, deathless splendor, leave it shining on.” The Man Who Walked Away From Power Those were not words of hyperbole, but of earned reverence. Washington led an upstart Continental Army to victory over the mighty British Empire—and then did something almost unimaginable: He resigned his commission. When the American artist Benjamin West informed King George III that Washington was walking away from power, the monarch famously replied, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” Washington returned to Mount Vernon, choosing civilian life over a crown. Duty soon called again. In 1787, Washington was summoned to Philadelphia to preside over the Constitutional Convention. He was later unanimously elected as the nation’s first president. Among his many achievements, he signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 into law, barring slavery in new U.S. territories. After two terms, he again relinquished power and returned home. An Artist Finds His Calling But who was Brumidi—and how did he become the Capitol’s most important painter? “As a boy in Italy, he studied at a famous arts academy and learned how to fresco, painting on wet plaster so colors could become a permanent part of the wall,” the Capitol Historical Society notes. In Rome, Brumidi painted palaces, chapels, and the Pope’s residence at the Vatican. Forced to flee political upheaval during the Italian Revolution in 1852, Brumidi came to America. Living in New York, he traveled widely to paint private homes and churches, including a cathedral in Mexico City. On one return trip, he stopped in Washington, D.C., to visit the Capitol—a detour that changed his life. Painting a Nation The timing could not have been better. The Capitol had recently expanded to accommodate larger House and Senate chambers, leaving behind vast, empty walls. Brumidi was determined to fill them. He demonstrated his talent with a small painting in a Capitol meeting room, passed the audition, and soon became a permanent fixture—painting there for the next quarter century. So constant was his presence that few could remember a day when Brumidi was not at work in the Capitol. The scaffolding required for “The Apotheosis of Washington” became nearly as famous as the artist himself. According to the Capitol Historical Society, “Brumidi would lie down on the platform, working flat on his back as he painted on the curved surface seventeen stories above the Rotunda’s floor.” It was dangerous work, and people often gathered to watch him get pulled each day to the scaffolding’s peak. One fall nearly killed him, saved only by the quick action of a watchful security guard who was able to save him. Injured, Brumidi continued painting for another year before his death in 1880. 180 Feet in the Air The most memorable creation of Brumaldi’s career is his effort to honor our nation’s founding father. “In the central group of the fresco, Brumidi depicted George Washington rising to the heavens in glory, flanked by female figures representing Liberty and Victory/Fame,” notes Architect of the Capitol on its website. “A rainbow arches at his feet, and thirteen maidens symbolizing the original states flank the three central figures. The figures in the painting, up to 15 feet tall, were painted to be intelligible from close up as well as from 180 feet below.” What was the significance of this God-like rendition of Washington? “The fresco is less a deification of Washington than a creative recording of his achievements,” wrote Nayeli Riano. “Like any historical painting, it’s telling us a story about how we understand our nation and its identity.” Should art like Brumidi’s show such admiration for its subject? “We might easily mistake such a work as blind reverence,” Riano noted. “Indeed, this is not the case. Brumidi’s fresco demonstrates, instead, the purpose of art: to lift our spirits and grant us something—an ideal—worth striving for.” One of our great historians, the late David McCullough, agreed. “This isn’t ancestor worship, this is reality, this is the truth,” McCullough said not long before his death. “To be indifferent to people like Washington is a form of ingratitude. We ought to be down on our knees thanking God we’re a part of this country, and we ought to know about the people who made it possible.” Two Lives, One Dome That belief animated Brumidi. He honored Washington—and the nation that adopted him—not with speeches or essays, but with paint and paint brush. Washington died at Mount Vernon on Dec. 14, 1799, mourned around the world. Brumidi died nearly 80 years later in Washington, D.C., largely forgotten, with one final work left unfinished: the Capitol’s “Frieze of American History.” Thus ended the intertwined story of America’s Cincinnatus and America’s Michelangelo—forever connected in a fresco adorning the dome of the U.S. Capitol. One the American people have admired for centuries—and will be admiring for centuries to come. Originally published in Newsweek. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post A Presidents Day Story for the Ages: George Washington and the Italian Painter Who Honored Him appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Presidents Day, officially known as Washington’s Birthday, Americans celebrate the life of George Washington. Here are some facts about George Washington that you might not know. The Only Unanimously Elected President To this day, Washington is the only president to receive all the votes from the Electoral College—and he did it twice. Washington won the electoral votes of all ten states that participated in the first election in the winter of 1788 and 1789, with North Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island not taking part for various reasons. In 1792, Washington would carry the electoral votes of all 15 states. Washington set a two-term precedent which was codified by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. Real Estate Magnate? Like America’s current president, Washington has a background in real estate. He was a major landowner, owning over 50,000 acres of land at the time of his death. His various properties stretched across the areas that are now Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Kentucky. Before becoming President of the United States, Washington was also the head of the Patowmack Company, which attempted to connect trade between the Ohio River Valley and the Atlantic seaboard via a network of canals. Led An Army as President A president personally leading troops toward a potential military engagement is unheard of in modern times. In 1794, as president, Washington personally organized a militia and lead it toward western Pennsylvania to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, a violent uprising against a federal tax on whiskey. The militia did not engage in battle upon arriving in western Pennsylvania, but Washington did play a hands-on role in putting together a military response to the rebellion. His Only Trip Abroad Although his half-brothers received an education in England, Washington never travelled abroad except for one visit to Barbados. The 19-year-old Washington joined his half-brother Lawrence, who had tuberculosis, in a trip to Barbados in September of 1751 in an attempt to help Lawrence’s health. The post Facts About George Washington You Might Not Know appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Where will you go to celebrate America’s birthday? This summer marks 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 250 years of demonstrating that human beings are capable of self-government and that a nation conceived in liberty can indeed endure. It seems almost providential, given the state of civic education, political divisions, and confusion surrounding what it means to be an American, that this birthday comes in our time: that it can inspire renewed unity and commitment to the principles of the Declaration. There are many ways to celebrate, but The Heritage Foundation would like to suggest one: Go to historic sites like battlefields, presidential museums, and the homes of exceptional Americans, to rediscover the American story. That story was written by the American people in real places across this country, and, as the best stories are, is replete with principles (the Bible, after all, is filled with stories). Going to Gettysburg reminds us of the painful drops of blood drawn by both the sword and the lash; Independence Hall makes palpable the unlikely miracle that a people could establish themselves, defeat the strongest military in the world, and determine their own laws; Mark Twain’s house reminds us of boys named Tom and Huck whose character we recognize and whose adventures awakened our imagination. Visits to these sites reacquaint us with the principles, people, and place that is America. The newly released Heritage Guide to Historic Sites is intended to aid trips to destinations such as these, by giving parents and teachers a sense of what to expect, recommending supplemental educational resources, and offering cautions when necessary. The main page is an online interactive map that pinpoints notable historic sites in each state, and the individual site pages both summarize and evaluate the tours and exhibits on offer. Each site receives a grade of A, B, or C based on standards of accuracy and comprehension, proportionality, and ideological bias. A section on “considerations for families” includes advice for parents with young children, such as which tours and exhibits are age-appropriate in terms of content or attention span. The reviews are dated, and a form at the bottom of each page allows anyone to indicate a site has changed since it was last evaluated, voice disagreement, or recommend another site to put on the map. Reviewers are individuals whose backgrounds match the sites themselves (for example, a poet reviewed Edgar Allen Poe’s House). This furnishes the Guide with a delightful perspective, as evaluators want to tell readers about a subject or an individual they love, about poetry, art, architecture, and history. Specialized evaluators are also particularly equipped to identify when sites are presenting inaccurate or incomplete information or betraying an ideological bias. No one can be an expert in all aspects of the American heritage, and citizens go to historic sites to remember and learn. Some historical distortions are apparent, others are not. Bringing third-party accountability to the museum space is becoming increasingly necessary. As historian Wilfred McClay notes of the Harriet Beecher Stowe Center for Literary Activism, visitors “hoping to learn more about the life and work of an important American author, and about her life as a woman in full, will be bitterly disappointed by this site.” Readers of the Guide will likewise be given the warning that there are no exhibits focused on James Madison at his Montpelier home today. These locations are worth defending, as education doesn’t just happen in the classroom; historic sites form the landscape of public education. Such education can be undertaken with peers, but is often shared with family members across generations, with grandparents, parents, and siblings, which makes historic sites unique. More so, excursions to historic sites frequently bring children outdoors, at least for a time, and away from screens. As our world grows more customizable (gone are the days when there were a few television channels and everyone watched the same program and talked about it at school or work the next day), shared cultural experiences are increasingly precious. Many of us look back on those summer vacations and day trips to Independence Hall, Mount Vernon, or Fort McHenry with fondness. Some make a tradition of bringing the next generation to our favorite places, perhaps even annually. Beyond strengthening familial and community ties, trips to historic sites help establish and fortify our unity as Americans. Vital to this task is knowing American history, particularly our exceptional origin story, and the meaning of the principles of the Declaration of Independence that define us as a people and set the standards and limits of human conduct. If we became a people, or America a place, no longer dedicated to and protective of human equality, consent of the governed, and inalienable rights, we will relinquish what means the most. Historic sites make our duties as citizens palpable. Preserving consecrated ground, relics and shrines, and the homes that have become symbols of not only individual, but of American, accomplishment is an act of gratitude that connects the past and posterity. Stewardship reminds us that we are not the singular authors of the places we inhabit and the culture we benefit from, though we may do our part for a time. Indeed, that reminder calls on us to do our part. And what wonderful fortune that our part is a leading one–that our responsibility is to celebrate the first 250 years of America so that many more may follow. The post What We as Americans Can Learn From Historic Sites appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the Delegates from so many different States … should unite in forming a system of national Government…”  –George Washington, Letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, February 7, 1788 After the Revolutionary War was settled, many colonists thought their nearly decade-long struggle might be over. Far from it. The 13 colonies considered themselves independent entities, even though they were loosely bound together by the Articles of Confederation. Despite having won the war, enormous challenges lay ahead, namely, how the colonies would exist together in a cohesive governmental framework, how they would all act in case of attack, rules for conducting commerce between them and what laws would prevail if disputes arose between the states. Some historians now privately wonder whether spiritual intervention got them to agree on a national framework binding them all together. In “Miracle at Philadelphia,” Catherine Drinker Bowen details the personalities involved in crafting the U.S. Constitution, including James Madison, scholarly expert on the history of governments, considered its “architect,” James Wilson, Madison’s equal whose knowledge of law helped shape the final document, Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, whose recommendations concerning revenue and the funding of the new government were hugely instrumental in the formation of the banking system and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, whose “Connecticut Compromise” helped finalize states’ representation in the new system. The debates started on May 25, 1787, lasting nearly four months through the sweltering Philadelphia Summer. Appointing General Washington to oversee the Convention was a stroke of genius, putting his stellar reputation behind the proceedings. Yet the dialogue was, at times brutal in attacks on the character of the attendees. Representatives of the smaller states believed they would be overruled by the more populous ones. At one point, Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware shouted, “I do not, gentlemen, trust you!” Patrick Henry, whose “Give me liberty, or give me death!” helped spark the revolution, refused to attend the Convention, saying “I smelt a rat.” Samuel Adams, who many considered the ‘loudest voice’ for independence, also did not attend, distrusting centralized authority. John Hancock, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee were among those who were highly skeptical of a system which might take away their freedom. Getting men from different backgrounds and geographic regions to agree on such a document seemed a Herculean task. It was. The delegates, deemed Federalists (who supported the Constitution) and anti-Federalists (who opposed it), debated every nuance for and against forming a centralized government. Later adversaries Alexander Hamilton and James Madison here argued together quite vehemently that the nation had no cohesive framework, states were fighting against each other over commerce, taxes and regulations, struggling to survive, we had no national currency, no banking system, the country was deeply in debt and couldn’t even pay its bills. In short, America in 1787 was a mess. How could it hope to come together and solve its many problems? Historian Forrest McDonald, in “The Economic Origins of the Constitution,” states that adopting a moniker was a cunning move. As he wrote, “the choice of the name ‘Federalists’ by the friends of the Constitution was … a bit of political strategy. The Federalists were really nationalists on the issue of ratification. The real federalists were those who preferred the confederation existing under the Articles to the general government proposed by the Constitution. “Nonetheless, the labels ‘Federalist’ and ‘anti-Federalist’ stuck…” It was brilliant. Calling those who were against the Constitution ‘anti-Federalists’ implied they were fighting against their own state authority, yet the debates raged on. Some were praying that Divine Providence would help. Of the 55 men who had agreed to attend the Convention, only 39 signed it on Sept. 17 and the outlook was quite uncertain, but in the Summer of 1788, God showed up. The Federalists finally won the day with approval by the ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21. Mid-Atlantic states had led the way: Delaware was first to ratify on Dec. 7, 1787; Pennsylvania was not far behind on Dec. 12. Two out of the first three states to ratify (Delaware and New Jersey) did so unanimously, all three in the same year it was written, a much-needed stamp of approval. As a whole, the Mid-Atlantic states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland) had by far the highest average approval percentage (87.9%) of all the states. Yet a review of the voting shows just how perilously close to failure we came. A total of 1,648 votes were cast at ratifying conventions or assemblies. A swing of just 23 votes or 1.4% of the total would have led to disapproval of the Constitution, leaving the nation in chaos. Perhaps “miracle” is the best descriptor for what occurred. Even with ratification, huge obstacles lay ahead. Anti-Federalists demanded the creation of a list of liberties guaranteed to citizens. This was accomplished with the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified on Dec.15, 1791. It was 81-year old Benjamin Franklin who accurately voiced his continuing concerns after he and the other delegates signed the document in the Pennsylvania State House, in the same room where the Declaration of Independence had been signed. A woman came up to him as he was leaving the building and asked him what kind of government they had created. He said: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” What the Founding Fathers achieved is truly extraordinary. British Prime Minister William Gladstone described it as “the most wonderful work ever struck off … by the brain and purpose of man.” James Madison was proud of what he and his colleagues had accomplished, saying: “Nothing has excited more admiration in the world than the manner in which free governments have been established in America … ” Today, 238 years later, we can all be thankful for their efforts producing a document that has withstood the test of time so well. This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post America at 250: Miracle at Philadelphia appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN on Sunday that Democrats will fight “tooth and nail” against the House-passed SAVE America Act, an election integrity bill he likened to racial segregation. During an appearance on “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash,” Schumer stressed his caucus will “not let” the legislation reach President Donald Trump’s desk and suggested Republicans only support it because they do not want poor people and minorities to vote. The Trump-backed SAVE America Act would mandate voters to present photo ID at the polls—a requirement surveys show the vast majority of Americans support—as well as proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration. “About 83% of the American people, including a majority Democrats, support voter ID laws,” host Jake Tapper told Schumer during their exchange. Tapper was referring to an August 2025 Pew Research Center survey which also found that 71% of Democrats and 95% of Republicans support mandating “all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.” “Well, yes, the voter ID laws that—first, each state can have its own voter ID laws, and some do and some don’t,” Schumer replied to the CNN host. “But, secondly, what they [Republicans] are proposing in this so-called SAVE Act is like Jim Crow 2.0.” The Jim Crow laws served as the basis of legalized segregation across America’s southern states throughout the late 19th and much of the 20th century. They were finally overturned amid the civil rights movement the 1960s. “They make it so hard to get any kind of voter ID that more than 20 million legitimate people, mainly poorer people and people of color, will not be able to vote under this law,” Schumer continued. “We will not let it pass in the Senate. We are fighting it tooth and nail.” The SAVE Act is an “outrageous proposal that shows the sort of political bias of the MAGA right,” the minority leader added. “They don’t want poor people to vote. They don’t want people of color to vote, because they often don’t vote for them,” the New York Democrat claimed. Seventy-six percent of black respondents, 77% of Asian respondents, and 82% of Hispanic respondents supported requiring all voters to show photo ID to be able to cast a ballot, according to Pew Research Center’s August 2025 survey. The House passed the SAVE America Act Wednesday with only one Democrat, moderate Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, joining Republicans in support. Cuellar is of Mexican descent and represents a district on the American southern border which is over 70% Hispanic. Schumer also suggested during his CNN appearance the notion of federal agents monitoring the polls to stop suspected illegal immigrants from casting ballots in elections “flies in the face” of democracy. “They show no evidence of voter fraud. They show there’s so little in the country,” he said. “And to have ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents, these thugs, be by the polling places, that just flies in the face of how democracy works, of how we’ve had elections for hundreds of years very successfully.” “Why should you ban ICE from being at polling places? Because illegals aren’t supposed to vote in this America,” Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith said Thursday on CNBC. “Apparently Democrats don’t like the rule of law. If they don’t like the rule of law, they need to change it.” Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Schumer Vows to Fight Supposed ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ Bill With Policy 83% of Americans Support appeared first on The Daily Signal.