John and Abigail Adams: 250 Years Strong

Today marks the "sestercentennial" (250th anniversary) of the marriage of John and Abigail Adams, who were by far the coolest couple of the founding era.  Today, several historical societies, to include the Abigail Adams Historical Society, the Adams National Historical Park, and the First Church in Weymouth will be celebrating this historical event in a variety of ways to include a complete reenactment of the Adams wedding!

For anyone who has studied the American Revolution and the lives of the key founders in particular, you are more than familiar with the relationship between John and Abigail Adams.  Their bond ran much deeper than husband and wife. They were each other's closest confidants. Each relied on the other in a way that no other "founding couple" ever did. Their vast collection of correspondence with one another is a treasure trove for all Americans to enjoy. For historians today, John and Abigail Adams are authentic and "accessible" in a way that other Founding Fathers are not.  And in the fifty four years they had together, John and Abigail Adams forged a bond that would easily rival that of Romeo and Juliet, Mork and Mindy, or Sonny and Cher!

Below are a few small excerpts from some of my favorite letters between John and Abigail Adams during their courtship years. You can access all of their surviving correspondence by clicking here:

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

ABIGAIL SMITH to JOHN ADAMS: MAY 9, 1764

Weymouth May. th 9 1764

Welcome, Welcome thrice welcome is Lysander to Braintree, but ten times more so would he be at Weymouth, whither you are affraid to come. -- Once it was not so. May not I come and see you, at least look thro a window at you? Should you not be glad to see your Diana? I flatter myself you would.

[...]

As to a neglect of Singing, that I acknowledg to be a Fault which if posible shall not be complaind of a second time, nor should you have had occasion for it now, if I had not a voice harsh as the screech of a peacock. The Capotal fault shall be rectified, tho not with any hopes of being lookd upon as a Beauty, to appear agreeable in the Eyes of Lysander, has been for Years past, and still is the height of my ambition. The 5th fault, will endeavour to amend of it, but you know I think that a gentleman has no business to concern him self about the Leggs of a Lady, for my part I do not apprehend any bad effects from the practise, yet since you desire it, and that you may not for the future trouble Yourself so much about it, -- will reform. The sixth and last can be cured only by a Dancing School. -- But I must not write more. I borrow a hint from you, therefore will not add to my faults that of a tedious Letter -- a fault I never yet had reason to complain of in you, for however long, they never were otherways than agreeable to your own 

 A. Smith

JOHN ADAMS to ABIGAIL SMITH: SEPTEMBER 30, 1764

I have this Evening been to see the Girl. -- What Girl? Pray, what Right have you to go after Girls? -- Why, my Dear, the Girl I mentioned to you, Miss Alice Brackett. But Miss has hitherto acted in the Character of an House-Keeper, and her noble aspiring Spirit had rather rise to be a Wife than descend to be a Maid.

To be serious, however, she says her Uncle, whose House she keeps cannot possibly spare her, these two Months, if then, and she has no Thoughts of leaving him till the Spring, when she intends for Boston to become a Mantua Maker.

[...]

Tomorrow Morning I embark for Plymouth -- with a (fowl) disordered stomach, a pale Face, an Aching Head and an Anxious Heart. And What Company shall I find there? Why a Number of bauling Lawyers, drunken Squires, and impertinent and stingy Clients. If you realize this, my Dear, since you have agreed to run fortunes with me, you will submit with less Reluctance to any little Disappointments and Anxieties you may meet in the Conduct of your own Affairs. 

I have a great Mind to keep a Register of all the stories, Squibbs, Gibes, and Compliments, I shall hear thro the whole Week. If I should I could entertain you with as much Wit, Humour, smut, Filth, Delicacy, Modesty and Decency, tho not with so exact Mimickry, as a certain Gentleman did the other Evening. Do you wonder, my Dear, why that Gentleman does not succeed in Business, when his whole study and Attention has so manifestly been engaged in the nobler Arts of smutt, Double Ententre, and Mimickry of Dutchmen and Negroes? I have heard that Imitators, tho they imitate well, Master Pieces in elegant and valuable Arts, are a servile Cattle. And that Mimicks are the lowest Species of Imitators, and I should think that Mimicks of Dutchmen and Negroes were the most sordid of Mimicks. If so, to what a Depth of the Profound have we Page 4 page image View larger image plunged that Gentlemans Character. Pardon me, my dear, you know that Candour is my Characteristick-as it is undoubtedly of all the Ladies who are entertained with that Gents Conversation. 

Oh my dear Girl, I thank Heaven that another Fortnight will restore you to me -- after so long a separation. My soul and Body have both been thrown into Disorder, by your Absence, and a Month of two more would make me the most insufferable Cynick, in the World. I see nothing but Faults, Follies, Frailties and Defects in any Body, lately. People have lost all their good Properties or I my justice, or Discernment.

ABIGAIL SMITH to JOHN ADAMS: APRIL 20,1764

Fryday Morning April th 20

What does it signify, why may not I visit you a Days as well as Nights? I no sooner close my Eyes than some invisible Being, swift as the Alborack of Mahomet, bears me to you. I see you, but cannot make my self visible to you. That tortures me, but it is still worse when I do not come for I am then haunted by half a dozen ugly Sprights. One will catch me and leep into the Sea, an other will carry me up a precipice (like that which Edgar describes to Lear,) then toss me down, and were I not then light as the [illegible] Gosemore I should shiver into atoms -- an other will be pouring down my throat stuff worse than the witches Broth in Macbeth. -- Where I shall be carried next I know not, but I had rather have the small pox by inoculation half a dozen times, than be sprighted about as I am. What say you can you give me any encouragement to come? By the time you receive this hope from experience you will be able to say that the distemper is but a triffle. Think you I would not endure a trife for the pleasure of seeing Lysander, yes were it ten times that triffle I would. -- But my own inclinations must not be followed -- to Duty I sacrifice them. Yet O my Mamma forgive me if I say, you have forgot, or never knew -- but hush. -- And do you Lysander excuse me that something I promis'd you, since it was a Speach more undutifull than that which I Just now stop'd my self in -- for the present good by. 

Fryday Evening 

 I hope you smoke your Letters well, before you deliver them. Mamma is so fearful least I should catch the distemper, that she hardly ever thinks the Letters are sufficently purified. Did you never rob a Birds nest? Do you remember how the poor Bird would fly round and round, fearful to come nigh, yet not know how to leave the place -- just so they say I hover round Tom whilst he is smokeing my Letters. 

 But heigh day Mr. whats your Name? -- who taught you to threaten so vehemently "a Character besides that of critick, in which if I never did, I always hereafter shall fear you." Thou canst not prove a villan, imposible. I therefore still insist upon it, that I neither do, nor can fear thee. For my part I know not that there is any pleasure in being feard, but if there is, I hope you will be so generous as to fear your Diana that she may at least be made sensible of the pleasure. 

Mr. Ayers will bring you this Letter, and the Bag. Do no [t] repine -- it is fill'd with Balm. Here is Love, respects, regards, good wishes -- a whole waggon load of them sent you from all the good folks in the Neighbourhood. To morrow makes the 14th Day. How many more are to come? I dare not trust my self with the thought. Adieu. Let me hear from you by Mr. Ayers, and excuse this very bad writing, if you had mended my pen it would have been better, once more adieu. Gold and Silver have I none, but such as I have, give I unto thee -- which is the affectionate Regard of Your 

 A. Smith

JOHN ADAMS to ABIGAIL SMITH: OCTOBER 4, 1762

Miss Adorable

By the same Token that the Bearer hereof satt up with you last night I hereby order you to give him, as many Kisses, and as many Hours of your Company after 9 O'Clock as he shall please to Demand and charge them to my Account: This Order, or Requisition call it which you will is in Consideration of a similar order Upon Aurelia for the like favour, and I presume I have good Right to draw upon you for the Kisses as I have given two or three Millions at least, when one has been received, and of Consequence the Account between us is immensely in favour of yours,

John Adams

God and the Presidential Inauguration

When it comes to pomp and circumstance in the United States, there are few ceremonies that can surpass the one we call the Presidential Inauguration.  The peaceful transfer of power from one executive head to the other is a matter of national pride for most Americans and serves to highlight what is best about American democracy.

In light of President Obama's swearing in last week, I thought it might be fun to review the Inaugural ceremonies (particularly the Inaugural Addresses) of presidents past, and see what sort of similarities and differences might exist.  After all, a president's Inauguration has, traditionally, served as a "coming attractions" of sorts for what a president hopes to achieve.  Studying these ceremonies can help us to understand what each of the 44 American Presidencies held to be most dear.

Right out of the gate, the first thing I noticed when reviewing Presidential Inaugurations is the emphasis that each President placed on God, albeit in different ways.  From Washington to Obama, no Inaugural Address omits invoking some sort of special reference to deity.  But as I stated, the manner in which the particular invocation is made is quite different, and reveals a great deal about the President's (and society's) view of  God and his relationship to the American republic.

From George Washington's first Inaugural Address we see his typical flavor of Providential neutrality, in which his "god talk" could apply to virtually any creed in any era. He stated:

It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency (my emphasis).

Washington's first successors followed suit in invoking a generic providential figure instead of a specific deity as the divine overseer of the infant American republic.  John Adams petitioned the "Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty" to bless America, while James Madison asked for the blessings of "that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations."  Even the Great Thomas Jefferson, who has been erroneously claimed as one of their own by the modern atheists, made reference in his now infamous Inaugural Address ("We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists") when he petitioned the "Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe" to "lead our councils to what is best."  And, somewhat surprisingly, even Andrew Jackson, the "President of the People" only went so far as to invoke the blessings of "Providence" and the "Almighty Being" to assist him in his Presidential endeavors.  

It is safe to say that America's first eight presidents (with a possible exception for John Q. Adams who briefly paraphrased Psalms 127 when he stated "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain"), intentionally invoked a warm, generic providence as being the source of America's blessings as opposed to any specifically defined god from any particular creed.  

It wasn't until 1841 and the Inauguration of William Henry Harrison that a president paid homage to a specific god:

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness (My emphasis). 

But even after this precedent, many subsequent presidents returned to the standard of thanking, "that Divine Being who has watched over and protected our beloved country from its infancy" (James K. Polk) and "Divine" or "Kind Providence" (Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce).

A specific reference to Christianity isn't made again until 1861 when the Legendary Abraham Lincoln, while facing what would become America's greatest crisis, proudly declared that "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty."  Lincoln would again reference the Christian God in his Second Inaugural Address, but would do so with less confidence that this God was on their side:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully.

Lincoln went on to quote several Bible passages including, "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" (Matthew 18:7) and "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Psalms 19:9). In so doing, Abraham Lincoln became the first president to make dramatic, substantial and blatant references to the Christian God in his Inaugural Address.  

Those presidents who followed Lincoln would invoke both the general divine providence of Washington, Jefferson, etc. (to include Presidents Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Cleveland, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft, Hoover, FDR, L. Johnson and Clinton), while others paid homage to the Christian God of W.H. Harrison and Abraham Lincoln (including Garfield, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, G.W. Bush and Obama), depending on their own individual feelings and beliefs.  Eisenhower went far enough to lead the nation in prayer as his first act of his presidency:



Regardless of which deity served to be the ultimate source of blessings and providential protection, the fact remains that ALL American presidents have, as a component of their Inaugural "coming attractions" petitioned the heavens as a source for further prosperity and as an object of communal gratitude.  The name of this god has taken on many different shapes and colors (everything from Divine Creator, Almighty Providence, to Jesus Christ himself) but the point is that a god of some kind is beseeched to go before us all, as the avant garde of American society.  This reminds me a great deal of Benjamin Franklin's admonition for a "public religion" as being the glue that would bind the American republic.  In this regard, the American experiment has worked wonders and continues to amaze even to this day.

A 269-269 Electoral Tie?!?

So ONCE AGAIN I have fallen off the blogging wagon and allowed yet another month to pass without posting any material.  To my millions (or perhaps 3-4) of readers I apologize.  Sometimes life gets a little busy.

With September's twilight and the dawn of Fall upon us, Americans all across this nation prepare for yet another election season that is sure to bring all of the drama, suspense and intrigue of elections past.  As predicted, we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and even my beloved homes state of Colorado are all still very much in the cross hairs of both President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, who are making their final pleas to those few remaining undecided voters.  And since each of these states carry with them the few remaining and very precious Electoral College votes that may send their respective campaigns over the top, it is no wonder why both candidates are spending so much time and resources to win those votes.  Both parties know that each and every electoral vote counts, hence the haste in trying to acquire as many as possible in order to attain the magic number of 270.  The first one to the top of that mountain gets the White House!

But what happens if the election ends in an Electoral College tie? What happens if neither candidate reaches 270 but instead we have a 269-269 Electoral College tie?

Most Americans incorrectly assume that the popular vote would somehow determine the outcome, or that a second election would be held.  Makes sense, right?

WRONG!

The reality is that a 269-269 Electoral College tie could end up causing one helluva mess. 

It is the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides us with much of the script to this drama.  But instead of regurgitating the words of this amendment (which are somewhat confusing), let us instead take a look at the 2012 election and how a 269-269 tie might play out.

If on November 6th, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney end in an Electoral College stalemate, the first course of action will be to ensure the votes of the various state electorates.  This is a bit confusing so let me explain.  In the Electoral College system, each state is assigned a certain number of "electors" based on the state's population (Colorado, for example, has 9).  Each elector is essentially one vote out of a total possible 538.  In order to become president, a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes (the majority).  In most states, the winner of the popular vote wins the state's assigned electors.  So, if on November 6th Mitt Romney were to win Colorado's popular vote, he would be assigned all of Colorado's 9 Electoral College votes.  Seems simple enough, right?

Not quite.  The problem is that some states have laws that allow their electors to vote for whomever they choose, regardless of the popular vote.  Most states have created laws that prohibit an elector from changing his//her vote from the will of the people, but not all states.  In 1968, for example, one North Carolinian elector changed his vote from Richard Nixon to George Wallace, though the change had zero outcome on that election.  But if an election were to end in a tie (like we are assuming here with Obama and Romney) it is at least possible that one single electorate (one person) from a state without these laws could determine the presidency.  Crazy: yes.  Unlikely: yes.  Impossible: Nope.

With that said, it is highly doubtful that one elector would determine the outcome of the entire election.  What is more likely is that the 12th Amendment would come into play.  What the 12th Amendment states, in the event of an Electoral College tie, is that the new House of Representatives would convene on January 6th to cast their votes for the next President, while the Senate would determine the next vice President.  Now, most political analysts believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2012, while the Democrats will maintain the Senate.  For the sake of argument I am going to assume that both of these outcomes will take place on election day.  In consequence, it is therefore likely for us to assume that the House of Representatives would elect Mitt Romney as the next President, while the Senate would elect Joe Biden as vice President.  Simple partisan politics would determine the election, and we would be left with a Romney/Biden White House.

Except there is one small wrench in this whole equation.  In a normal situation, voting in the House of Representatives is done by giving each state representative one vote.  In the event of a 269-269 Electoral College tie, however, the voting is not representative-based but state-based.  In other words, California (which has 55 electoral votes, meaning 53 seats in the House) would not have 53 votes for the next president but rather 1 vote.  Let's put this into a practical example so it makes more sense:

If Obama and Romney end in a tie and the House ends up voting for the new president, all of California's 53 representatives would vote on who the state of California would support for President.  And since most of California's representatives are Democrats, it is logical to conclude that California would go for Obama.  With that said, Wyoming, which only has 1 representative in the House (a Republican), would also vote (likely Republican) and would have just as much say as California.  The size and representation of a state means nothing in this process.  One state: one vote. 

But here's the REALLY messy part:

Let us assume that Iowa goes for Mitt Romney in the General Election.  Iowa's representation in the House consists of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  If Iowa's representatives had to vote in this scenario, would they go with the will of their people who had elected Romney?  Or would they stay loyal to their party and elect Obama, since they have the majority (3 Democrats)?  This type of scenario is present in at least 6 other states.

In addition, it is important to note here that if a state has an equal number of representatives, and their voting results in a tie, that state forfeits its vote on the next president.   

One more tidbit: if the vote in the House of Representatives ends in a tie (or gridlock), the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an interim, two-year president from their V.P. selection.  And since it is likely that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate, we can logically say that in this scenario, Joe Biden would become the two-year interim President. 

But what if the Senate vote ended in a tie?  Well, as we all remember from Civics, 101, there is only one person who can cast the deciding vote in the event of a Senatorial tie: the vice President.  In other words, Joe Biden himself (the current V.P.) could, theoretically, vote for himself to become the next V.P. or (if it came to that) the next (and first) interim President of the United States.  That's right; Joe Biden (and an outside possibility of Paul Ryan) could, theoretically, become President of the United States if we have an Electoral College tie.  Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment, people.  Read it and weep. 

So how did we end up with a ridiculous system like this in the first place? We have our beloved Founding Fathers to thank for this nightmare. 

In the Presidential Election of 1800, incumbent John Adams squared off against his one-time friend turned foe, Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate receiving the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was able to barely edge out John Adams by winning 73 electoral votes to Adams' 65.  The problem, however, was that electors in those days had 2 votes instead of one.  As a result, the 73 electors for Jefferson also casted a second vote for party ally Aaron Burr, who also received 73 votes.  Originally Burr was propped up to become Jefferson's V.P. selection, and one of the electors was to withhold his vote from Burr, thereby giving Jefferson the win.  This did not happen, and Jefferson was forced into an unforeseen and uncomfortable standoff with his would-be vice President, Aaron Burr. 

Long story short, Jefferson's election to the presidency was eventually determined in the House but not without a long fight from Burr, who tried to take advantage of his accidental nomination.  It was only after months of  political negotiation that Jefferson supporters, championed by one Alexander Hamilton (who, strangely enough, disliked Jefferson but detested Burr even more), were able to garner enough votes to secure the nomination for Jefferson.  And to prevent such catastrophes from happening again, our wise Founding Fathers gave is the very messed up smorgasbord that is the 12th Amendment.  Hamilton and Burr went on to add further fuel to their already hot feud, which eventually culminated in their now infamous and, for Hamilton, deadly duel.  Jefferson went on to comple two terms and became immortalized as one of this nation's greatest presidents and statesmen. 

But none of that solves the current potential predicament that we face with each future presidential election.  The looming possibility of a 269-269 Electoral College tie brings with it the horrors of what would undoubtedly be the most bitter, divisive and ugly political dialogue since the Civil War.  Why we aren't proactive and choose to find a better solution is beyond me.  But, as a fan of uber-ridiculous political drama, I also must concede that a 269-269 tie would make for some great must see T.V.  The 12th Amendment helped to calm the political tensions of the late 18th/early 19th century.  Only time will tell if it ends up creating a new mess for us in the 21st century. 

Here We Go a-Caucusing

What is a Caucus?
And Where Did It Come From?

Tonight the primary season for the 2012 presidential election begins (ugh!). The Iowa Caucus, which has traditionally been the first major presidential primary event since the early 1970's, will be our first forecast into what is sure to be a fascinating election season. After Iowa, several other states (including my beloved "Centennial State") will also gather its delegates into various caucuses to nominate the man/woman they feel is the best possible candidate for the presidency of the United States. These caucuses, which are essentially nothing more than group meetings of political supporters, may seem a bit confusing to both the participants and to the general public. After all, isn't it a much easier process to simply cast an electronic vote?

What most Americans don't know when it comes to the caucus is the fact that it is a very old tradition, which dates back to a time before the United States ever existed. Though the origins of the word are still debated to this day, caucus is believed to have originated from the Algonquin Indians, who resided in what is today New York and Vermont. It is believed that the Algonquin word 'cau´-cau-as´u', meaning "counsel" was adopted by early American Democratic-republicans in the latter part of the 18th century. Historian J.L. Bell notes that the first known usage of the word caucus comes from the diary of America's second president, John Adams, who wrote:

"This day learned that the Caucas Clubb meets at certain Times in the Garret of Tom Daws, the Adjutant of the Boston Regiment. He has a large House, and he has a moveable Partition in his Garrett, which he takes down and the whole Clubb meets in one Room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip I suppose, and there they choose a Moderator, who puts Questions to the Vote regularly, and select Men, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are Regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a most rudis indigestaque Moles of others are Members. They send Committees to wait on the Merchants Clubb and to propose, and join, in the Choice of Men and Measures. Captn. Cunningham says they have often solicited him to go to these Caucas, they have assured him Benefit in his Business, &c."

(Click here for the link to the electronic archive of the Diary of John Adams)

And though the Iowa Caucus represents only 1% of all delegates, Iowa has been an effective indicator into how a presidential primary may go. Of the ten Democratic Iowa Caucuses since 1972, seven have gone on to be the party's nominee. For Republicans, six of the nine Iowa Caucus winners have won the party's nod. In short, the Iowa Caucus votes for the party's eventual nominee about 65-70% of the time; not a surefire gauge for the future but good enough for us to understand why the candidates love Iowa so much.

So as you make your way to your state's caucus in the next few months (assuming your state has one), remember that you are participating in a tradition that is possibly older than America itself. To go "a-caucusing" is an activity as American as apple pie, which, by the way, Native Americans enjoyed as well.

My prediction for tonight's caucus: Mitt Romney edges out Ron Paul to win.

James Otis: Abolitionist

When we think of our nation's Founding Fathers, we usually remember only the "key" participants (i.e. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin & Co.). Unfortunately, the contributions of lesser known participants take a back seat and regularly go unnoticed.

Such is the case with one James Otis. I have written about James Otis before in a post explaining his views on the laws of nature and rebellion to authority, but today I want to focus on his views regarding race; views which were, in many respects, very ahead of their time.

Though not a common citizen, Otis' legacy is often shrouded by the contributions of those that fought in the ranks of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Otis was not a warrior. He never fought for independence (in fact, Otis was quite reluctant to break from Great Britain). Yet Otis was undoubtedly one of the first influential voices of the American Revolution. Aside from his protests against the British early on, Otis was also a powerful voice against slavery. Throughout his life, Otis wrote some of the most stirring arguments against "the peculiar institution", most of which were very unpopular in 18th century America. For example, in a 1764 pamphlet Otis wrote:

Does it follow that 'tis right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curled hair like wool instead of Christian hair, as tis called by those whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the argument? Can any logical inference in favor of slavery be drawn from a flat nose, a long or a short face? Nothing better can be said in favor of a trade that is the most shocking violation of the law of nature, has a direct tendency to diminish the idea of the inestimable value of liberty, and makes every dealer in it a tyrant, from the director of an African company to the petty chapman in needles and pins on the unhappy coast. It is a clear truth that those who every day barter away other men's liberty will soon care little for their own.

John Adams recalled Otis speaking against slavery even earlier, during his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761. Adams recalled the occasion this way:

He asserted that these rights were inherent and inalienable. That they never could be surrendered or alienated but by idiots or madmen and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man. Nor were the poor Negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia or Mr. Jefferson in Virginia ever asserted the rights of Negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught...

In other words, none of the great "key" founders could speak as brilliantly on the issue of slavery as James Otis...probably because none of them wanted to bother. Keeping Blacks in their place was an easier task than to recognize their God-given rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Remembering Otis as a pioneer for the later abolitionists who would follow in his footsteps should not be forgotten. When dressed in this light, Otis' legacy and contributions become every bit as important as those of the men that fought on the battlefield. Though not considered a "key" founder, I find Otis' views regarding abolition to be pretty much "in key" with the ideology of the American founding.

Edmund Genet and the "Conspiracy" to Destroy America

One of the few consistent truths throughout the course of United States history has been that Americans of all generations have believed that conspiracies to thwart their freedom lurk around every corner and under every rock. Whether it takes the form of Catholic incursion or McCarthy communist witch hunts, Americans have always been on the lookout for the next big threat to our seemingly fragile republic.

And our founding generation was no different.

During the early years of the new American republic, scandals and conspiracies against the infant republic were a regular fixture in the halls of government. Divisions between those who supported a strong federal government (the Federalists) and those for limited centralized power (the Democratic-Republicans) created a rift in the political arena that seemed to grow with each passing day. Issues such as the Jay Treaty, which created an economic alliance with Britain over France, had caused an uproar amongst Democratic-republicans that only intensified with the later election of Federalist John Adams. For Democratic-republican leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the cause of France was the cause of America. They passionately believed that America needed to throw its weight behind the French cause, which was rapidly moving toward revolution itself. In their minds, to deny the French would be treasonous against the very ideals of the American Revolution itself. And as war between England and France continued to become more of a reality, America's economic and political preference with the British made relations with the French extremely tense.

The arrival of Edmond Genet as French ambassador to the United States in 1793 only intensified the ongoing political battle. Genet had been sent to America in an effort to garner support for the French cause. Democratic-republicans like Jefferson were initially ecstatic over Genet's arrival. As Gordon Wood points out in his book, Empire of Liberty:

He [Genet] landed in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1793, and in his month long journey north to Philadelphia he was everywhere greeted with warmth and enthusiasm. Americans sang "Marseillaise," waved the French revolutionary flag, and passed liberty caps around. Some Federalists thought the French Revolution was being brought to America. Later in his life John Adams still vividly recalled the frenzied atmosphere of "Terrorism, excited by Genet," that ran through the nation's capital in the late spring of 1793. "Ten thousand People in the Streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his office and effect Revolution in the Government, or compel it to declare War in favour of the French Revolution, and against England" (185-186).

Perhaps nobody was as excited to see Edmund Genet as was Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson attacked President Washington's quest for neutrality, stating that Genet's intentions (and the larger French intentions) were as pure as the driven snow:

"It is impossible for anything to be more affectionate, more magnanimous, than the purpose of Genet's mission. He [Genet] wishes to do nothing but what is for our own good and we should do all in our power to promote it." (Jefferson to Madison, May 19, 1793).

For Federalist leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Genet's arrival was not met with the pomp and circumstance afforded it by the Democratic-republicans by instead with a deep sense of concern. As Ron Chernow points out in his autobiography on Hamilton:

Where others saw camaraderie and high spirits, Hamilton detected an embryonic plot to subvert American foreign policy. The organizers of Genet's reception "were the same men who have been uniformly the enemies and the disturbers of the government of the U[nited] States."

[...]

In private talks with George Hammond, Hamilton promised that he would vigorously contest efforts to lure America into war alongside France. He also predicted that the United States would extend no large advances to the revolutionary government, and he delayed debt payments owed to France. In a dispatch to London, Hammond noted that Hamilton would defend American nutrality because "any event which might endanger the external tranquility of the United States would be as fatal to the systems he has formed for the benefit of his country as to his...personal reputation and...his...ambition." (Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 439).

And Hamilton wasn't alone in his disdain for the French ambassador. After observing Genet's antics, President George Washington commented:

"Is the Minister of the French Republic to set the Acts of his Government at defiance, with impunity? and then threaten the Executive with an appeal to the People? What must the world think of such conduct, and the Government of the U. States in submitting to it?"(Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism, 351).

For the Federalists, Genet's arrival was seen as a precursor to an even deeper plot to undermine the sovereignty of the new American republic. In a very real sense, Hamilton (and other fellow Federalists) saw Genet's presence in America as a possible foreshadowing of the French guillotine, which would sever not only the heads of Federalist leaders, but would destroy everything the revolution had created. As historian Paul Newman, author of the book, Fries's Rebellion points out:

"The Republican leadership, men like Jefferson and Madison, were not the Hamiltonians’ greatest fear. What frightened them most was the popular following the two Virginians and their newfound French ally attracted, and the fact that citizens had begun to publicly criticize and directly oppose Federalist policies" (52).

The following clip from HBO's John Adams miniseries helps to illustrate some of the tensions that Genet's arrival had caused:


In the end, it would be Genet's arrogance and lack of foresight that would be his undoing. The harsh tone in both his letters and speeches against the American government ended up costing Genet not only his American allies but his French support back home as well. Instead of coming off as the great "citizen of world liberty", Ambassador Genet became a liability. In addition, the American populace was beginning to see that the French Revolution was not as similar to their own as they had once thought. And as the French Jacobins seized power in 1794 (and demanded the return of Genet to France to face execution) the former French ambassador was forced to plea for asylum from the very government officials he had once opposed. Coincidentally, it was Hamilton, Genet's fiercest opponent, who advocated for Genet's asylum in the U.S. Genet lived out the rest of his life as a humble New York farmer.

And the republic, despite all of the threats to its security, lived on...happily ever after.

When Did Dirty Campaigning Begin in America?

Today is election day! As we are all aware, every two years in this grand nation of ours citizens invoke their right to elect the candidates to office whom they feel best represent their views, hopes and goals for the future. It is a time-honored practice that we as a nation have enjoyed (to differing degrees of course) for more than two centuries.

And as is the case with these election cycles, negative ads have become a staple item on the menu of American political dialogue. Virtually every candidate for almost every office up for grabs in today's election has engaged in some form of "mud-slinging" towards his/her opponent. Whether it takes the form of automated phone calls, mailed letters, television commercials or radio sound bites, this election has, for the most part, been like those of recent history: a dog fight.

With that said, we still see candidates who either deny their personal participation in negative campaign tactics or who claim to soar above such trivial and hostile banter. They claim to be invoking the extinct heritage of long ago, when Americans could somehow set aside their partisan politics and focus exclusively on the issues at hand. Oftentimes we see these same individuals calling upon the legacy of America's founding fathers as "evidence" of their innocence. These candidates state they (and their cause) are on the side of Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, whose purity and grace transcended political division, giving rise to an era of cooperation and contentment that our generation's political circus is incapable (or unwilling) to rekindle.

And though I am not a fan of today's 24/7 political media blitz and the constant bombardment of campaign ilk every election cycle, I think there is a grave misunderstanding as to the nature and history of American politics. We seem to be under the delusion that this "dog-eat-dog" street brawl style of campaigning is something new. It's not...and not even our blessed, holy, infallible founders were exempt from it.

210 years ago, at the turn of the century, two of the biggest players in the American Revolution exchanged blows over some of the same issues that still occupy us to this day. John Adams, the incumbent who had taken the Federalist reigns from the great George Washington, squared off with his on-again, off-again, on-again Virginia friend, Thomas Jefferson. Contrary to what we are often led to believe, this contest was incredibly fierce and oftentimes took a very negative tone. For example, when the Adams camp learned of Jefferson's desire to thwart the Federalists they accused Jefferson of plotting to destroy the very fabric of society by eliminating god from American life. As one broadside stated:

The attacks didn't stop with mere broadsides. Having discovered some of Jefferson's personal religious declarations that could prove problematic to his campaign, the Adams camp went on the offensive. In his infamous letter to the Reverend William Linn in 1800, Jefferson stated, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Along with this declaration, Jefferson went on to state the following about Christianity:

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

Needless to say, such comments proved to be extremely distasteful to the American populace, who actually believed that a Jefferson election might actually lead to:

Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest [being] openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes.

And:

Female chastity violated [with] children writing on a pike.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind and a threat to our way of life." (Gee, you NEVER hear that kind of stuff about our current leaders!).

To capitalize on these comments, the Adams campaign took swift action. Acting as if they had been handed a gift from the divine, Adams' men pounced Jefferson in the public arena, accusing him of being "an enemy to his country and his God." Steven Waldman, author of the book Founding Faith sites a poem that was used against Jefferson throughout the campaign:

I am the first of men in the ways of evil,
The truest, thriftiest servent of the Devil;
Born, educated, glory to engross
And shine confess'd the Devil's Man of Ross.
Here's three to one I beat even him in pride;
Two whores already in my chariot ride. (Founding Faith, 170).

But the fight was far from one-sided. To counter the Adams onslaught Jefferson decided to take off the gloves. On one public occasion, Jefferson called Adams, "a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man or the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." (David McCullough, John Adams, Pp. 500). But Jefferson didn't stop there. Taking advantage of President Adams' foolish Alien & Sedition Acts (a law that essentially tried to make it illegal for people to speak or publish anything negative about the president) Jefferson created the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, in which Jefferson claimed that:

The several States composing the US. Of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…and one of the Amendments to the constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, therefore the act of Congress…are altogether void and of no force.

As election day drew closer, President Adams found himself in a political mess that virtually consumed him. The Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson's clan) had effectively used the Alien & Sedition Acts to brand the President as a tyrant by calling them, "the most abominable and degrading Executive act that could fall from the lips of the first magistrate of an independent people." In an effort to demonstrate just how "tyrannical" the Adams Administration had become, Jefferson called on renowned pamphleteer James Callender, a long-time enemy to the Federalists who had attacked the likes of Alexander Hamilton by exposing his affair with Maria Reynolds to the public. This time, Callender was to turn his sights on the president himself. In his popular pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, Callender pulled out all the punches by boldly proclaiming that John Adams had become a miniature version of King George III:

The reign of Mr. Adams has been one continued tempest of malignant passions. Indeed, the president has never opened his lips, or lifted his pen without threatening and scolding; the grand object of his administration has been to exasperate the rage of contending parties to culminate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions.

The Federalist response to Callender's "treason" was swift. Callender was quickly jailed in Richmond and sentenced by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase to five years in prison. In consequence, Callender quickly became a poster boy of sorts for the Jefferson campaign. Callender's imprisonment illustrated to the common man just how far Adams had gone. In essence, Callender became Jefferson's 19th century version of "Joe the Plumber."

In the end, the Alien & Sedition Acts helped to solidify the popular message of the Democratic-republicans, which in turn led to the election of their beloved Thomas Jefferson(even if he was an evil, godless man whose reign would surely lead to rape, murder, etc.). The popularity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, combined with the "mud-slinging" efforts of James Callender and Jefferson himself, helped to ensure the demise of the Adams Administration. But the election was close...VERY close. See for yourself:

In the aftermath, Federalist supporters were devastated. Alexander Hamilton (one of Jefferson's biggest rivals) made the claim that a Jefferson presidency would surely usher in an era of violence unprecedented in American history, in which the guillotine of France would replace the civility of American republicanism (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 429). Former First Lady Abigail Adams wrote to her husband stating, "'What an inconsistency,' said a lady to me today, 'the bells of Christ's Church ringing peals of rejoicing for an infidel president!'"

But somehow America survived. After all, here we are 210 years later. And while many things have changed over those two centuries, other things have stood the test of time...namely our tradition of crazy, over-hyped political partisanship. Yes, some may feel that an Obama presidency is a surefire catalyst for fascist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist, Nazi, communist totalitarianism, while a Tea Party regime is sure to bring about racist, homophobic, idiotic, psychotic, leadership. But in the end all of this rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. Is there really any difference between the crap we hear today and the crap our beloved founders threw at one another? Not really. The only difference is that we're inundated with more of it today (thanks Fox News and MSNBC).

So the next time you drink the Chicken Little Kool-Aid and freak out over the possibility of the sky falling because the "other team" has won political power, remember that we've been down this propaganda road many times. If we can survive the "HORRIFIC" tyranny of John Adams and the "DISASTROUS" atheism of Thomas Jefferson, I'm pretty sure we'll be ok in the here and now. In conclusion, check out the following videos. They do a wonderful job of capturing some of the fear that surrounded the election of 1800:

The Decline of Jefferson and Rise of Adams

Over the past few years, I can't help but take note of the fact that there seems to have been a major shift in the way both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are perceived by the general public. In a nutshell, John Adams has surged in popularity while Jefferson is being left in the dust. Obviously the hit HBO drama on the life of John Adams has done much to bolster this one time self-defeating founder (as Adams himself put it, "History will remember very little of me...I will have no monuments.") while Jefferson is being removed from textbooks because he "wasn't Christian enough."

While it is true that John Adams was once considered a "lesser" of the Founding Fathers, recent events and research have propelled Adams to a higher level of recognition and appreciation. On the flip side, the once prominent Thomas Jefferson (personally speaking, my favorite Founding Father) has witnessed a decrease in his popularity. The man who was once hailed as the greatest political mind of his era is now being remembered more for his views on religion and slavery. Jefferson's lack of Christian orthodoxy, combined with his views on slavery (not to mention the huge impact of the Sally Hemmings affair) have caused Jefferson to slip a little.

Is this fair? Should we promote Adams at the expense of Jefferson?

If there is one thing I have learned from studying Jefferson and Adams it is that their legacies are joined at the hip. Their on again, off again, on again friendship is a highlight of the revolutionary era. Like Batman needs the Joker, Jefferson and Adams often needed each other. The fact that they were polar opposites on virtually every political (and sometimes religious) issue serves as a template for later social and political struggles the United States would face. When we compare Adams and Jefferson, we are often comparing North v. South, Puritan v. Anglican, Federalist v. Republican, aristocrat v. farmer, passionate v. reserved, tall v. short, sophisticated v. crass. As a result, I guess it would only be natural for one man's stock to go down as the other's went up. As the American political/social pendulum swings from left to right, so does the general public's approval of Jefferson v. Adams. As historian Joseph Ellis states, Jefferson and Adams really were "the head and the heart of the Revolution...a brotherhood that illustrates America's diversity of thought." As a result, it is only natural that Americans today will, from time to time, see Jefferson and Adams in different ways...as representations of America's continually shifting pendulum.

In conclusion, I couldn't help but include my all-time favorite Jefferson quote. In one of his final letters to John Adams (who had earlier written Jefferson to complain about the current course of American politics in the typical Adams doomsday style) Jefferson responded with this. Enjoy:

"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not bigotry. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the returns of ignorance and barbarism. Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders and hobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priests and kings."

The Glenn Beck Check, Part IV: Batman Meets Robin

And The Stupidity of the
Dynamic Duo is Staggering

It's been a while since I did an installment of the Glenn Beck Check. To be honest, I just get so tired of this stupid windbag that it's hard to listen to his material. Nevertheless, I will try to press on because, as of late, I have come across a lot of material that is sure to make your head spin with the stupidity and ignorance that has become a trademark of "Beckonian" idiocracy.

Over the past couple of months, Glenn Beck has been on an American rock...er..."American Revival" tour to several cities where he presents his watered-down, dumbed-up, biased, and downright false take on American history. And guess what??? He isn't alone. Like Batman needs his Robin, Glenn Beck too needs an equally stupid sidekick...and he hit a home run with his choice. Beck selected none other than David Barton, pseudo-historian extraordinaire and the most passionate voice for the "Christian Nation" crowd out there today. If you don't know anything about David Barton get ready to hold on to your hats. He'll take you on a "patriotic" "inspiring" and "religious" Founding Fathers joyride that will excite any Bible-thumping, Jesus-jamming, tea-bagging zealot that Fox News has not yet inspired. There's only one problem: almost everything he says is false. Seriously. I've been following this nut-job for a few years now. He's a demonstrable fraud who has been forced to recant his "history" on so many occasions that he has zero credibility with anyone in the historical community. Simply put, Barton is to history what creationism is to science. He's historical and intellectual poison that should be outright rejected due to his obviously biased agenda and lack of any legitimate historical backing (not to mention the fact that he simply makes crap up). The only reason he has an audience is because he tells people what they want to hear: that America is Jesusland and the founders were all die-hard Evangelical Christians. Thanks to Barton's daily radio broadcasts from his website, Wallbuilders, not to mention his numerous books including The Myth of Separation, Barton's crap has spread to the ignorant masses at virtual light speed. And now, Glenn Beck too is drinking the Barton Kool-Aid!

Here's part one of Batman and Robin's debut performance on Faux News:


Ugh! Right out of the gate Beck hits us with more of that ridiculous "socialist" "Marxist" Obama crap. Seriously, Glenn, this part of your act is getting REALLY old. And as you can see (which is a standard practice for Glenn) he never provides a single shred of evidence for this stupid rant...other than colorful crap on his blackboard (which he is usually incapable of spelling correctly).

At 1:10 into his rant, Beck brings up a topic that he regularly mentions: restoring America to its former greatness. Of course, Beck assumes that this "restoration" is somehow in harmony with his extremely messed up and biased view of American history. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt here. After all, he claims to revere the Founding Fathers (which is a good thing), but how well does he understand them? Aside from saying that "we are on the verge of collapse" what other "pearls of wisdom" does Beck have to offer?

Let's find out.

Well, the "faith," "Hope," and "charity" component sure invokes passionate feelings but it proves nothing. Perhaps Batman needs a little assistance? Enter the one and only (thank goodness there is only one of him) David Barton! At 4:10 Beck states, "here's the history you are never taught in school." Uh, yeah, totally agree there Glen...because IT ISN'T HISTORY YOU MORON!!! Let's dissect the B.S. shall we:

At 4:38 David Barton offers up one of his biggest lies of all: that congress published a Bible. Sorry but this is a complete and total lie. Here's the truth about this Bible. A Philadelphia printer by the name of Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for permission to print the Bible here in America. His hope was that he would be able to gain congressional sanctioning for his bible, especially since American printing was basically in the toilet at this time and getting books from Britain was almost impossible. Well, Aitken continued to hound Congress with a countless number of petitions asking for approval and congressional sanctioning for his bible. He never got it. What he did get, however, was a congressional endorsement of his printing. Again, American printing sucked at this time and Congress needed to get it moving. Aitken's ability to mass produce a book as large as the Bible demonstrated that American industry and independence was becoming a reality. As a result, Congress was happy to promote Aitken's printing...but NOT his Bible. And again, Congress didn't print the book, Aitken did, using his own time, resources and money. Congress never gave him a thing...except perhaps a pat on the back for his ingenuity in printing.

So how does Barton come to his conclusions? Well, the first thing he does is mess up his dates. On a number of occasions (not present in the video above) Barton tries to argue that Congress began printing these bibles in 1782, immediately following the victory of Yorktown. The problem, however, is that Aitken had already begun printing as early as 1779, a full three years BEFORE victory at Yorktown. In addition, Barton's claims that Congress "recommended" the Bible is simply Aiken's overzealous and presumptuous move to give his Bible more credit than it deserved. Congress NEVER approved it. Now, Barton claims that there are "congressional records" which show that the Bible was approved, specifically to be "A neat addition to the Holy Scriptures for use in our schools." The only problem (and he conveniently omits this part) is that these "records" are Aitken's letters to Congress! In other words, Barton's research is so bad that he actually considers Aitken's petitions as "Congressional documents." This would be like you or I petitioning Congress for a new car by stating that it would be "a neat addition to my front driveway", having Congress refuse the petition, and then using that same letter we sent as proof that Congress was for it! Barton is king of this kind of research because he knows his audience will never bother to check his sources.

Ok, that's sort of the ultra-condensed rebuttal of Barton and Beck's stupid "American Bible" nonsense. For a much more thorough rebuking click here to view a video by a lady named Chris Rodda, author of the book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate View of America History.

At 6:50 Beck mentions Benjamin Franklin's view on religion, which were DEIST in nature (conveniently ignored by Beck). Beck recites a famous Franklin quote (from a letter to Ezra Stiles) in which Franklin states that he "believes in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence." However, Beck "conveniently" leaves out the rest of the quote. When speaking of the divinity of Jesus, Franklin wrote:

I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity.

I suppose that's just more of the "history we never learn" right, Beck?

At 7:35 Barton and Beck mention Samuel Adams and his petitions for prayer. Well, we're still doing that today (a practice that I agree with) so they should be thrilled. We're still doing something the founders did! The problem is that Beck and Barton take this thread and run it into idiocracy. Batman and Robin mention that "9 out of the 13 colonies" had state religions at the time of the founding of America. Well, duh! American COLONIES each had their own religion (or at least most of them did). However, every single state REMOVED their state religions at or shortly after the Revolution. Just another tidbit left out of their "enlightening" discussion I suppose. And of course the religion analogy has NOTHING to do with healthcare as Beck suggests. Just another stupid remark.

**If you want to read more about state religions click here for a piece I did not long ago on the controversy religion caused Massachusetts at the time of the founding**

At 8:45 David Barton mentions Charles Carroll. In the video, Barton suggests that Carroll used his wealth to establish a church in Maryland because, "there wasn't enough wealth" in the state to create one. Uh, sorry David. More half-truths and outright lies. What happened was Charles Carroll (a very devout Catholic) put up money for the establishment of a Catholic church in the area because the religion was being forced out. Though established to be a haven for Catholics, Maryland Evangelical Christians (the same Christians that David Barton supports) grew sick of their presence and wanted them out. As a result, Catholics were severely chastened by early Americans. Carroll was simply trying to help out his own, not assist religion in a broad sense, and certainly not to create government-sanctioned religion

Of course Beck's final comment is priceless: "Why we are bringing this up America is because you have to have the correct history." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Speak for yourself, Glenn. The rest of us are doing just fine!

And here's part 2 of Batman and Robin's act:


Right out of the gate Barton brings up the book, The Godless Constitution. This book is exactly what it claims to be: an examination of the godless nature of American society. And no, it is NOT used that much as a textbook like Beck suggests. And though I agree with Beck and Barton that this book is every bit the nonsense (from the far left) as is Beck and Barton's crap (from the far right), I do wish Barton would point out where in the Constitution we can find even one reference to God. Guess what...it doesn't exist! But again, this is inconvenient to Barton and Beck's agenda so they don't mention the FACT that the founders intentionally drafted the Constitution to be a secular document in which references to God were intentionally left out. Yes, the book, The Godless Constitution takes this reality too far in its assumption that America is completely secular but it does at least fit this historical reality, whereas Beck and Barton are still unable to figure out what reality is.

At 1:20 Barton brings up Benjamin Rush. Now, Barton is right when he states that most Americans don't have a clue who this guy is. From what the video shows (it goes black for some reason), Barton's depiction of Rush is sound. He was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society and was a passionate Christian. BUT we should keep in mind that Rush's desire for Christianity to be preached in schools was rejected, so I'm not sure what Barton stands to gain by mentioning him.

At 2:08 Barton briefly mentions Stephen Hopkins. He states that Hopkins was a "devout orthodox Quaker" which isn't true. He was actually Episcopalian. And no, he did NOT use the scriptures to illustrate why America should break from Britain. Hopkins' most famous pamphlet, The Rights of the Colonies Examined was a rebuking of British taxation and had NOTHING to do with religion The Bible is only mentioned as a historical reference and is used in conjunction with Greek and Roman history (which, of course were pagan). Barton simply assumes that any reference to the Bible is conclusive proof of a person's belief in Christianity. Well, why isn't the same standard used when Hopkins references the Greeks (who are mentioned twice as much as the Bible)? Silly little tidbit of history that FOX viewers don't need I suppose.

At 2:25 Batman and Robin bring up Robert Treat Paine. Now, Barton is right in pointing out that Paine was a Chaplin...at least for a while. However, Paine eventually left the Congregationalist Church and became a devout Unitarian...you know...that "heathen" religion that rejects many of the Evangelical Christian teachings that Barton claims the founders loved.

At 4:20 Batman and Robin make the INSANE claim that the Book of Deuteronomy was the most quoted source of the founding, supposedly more so that even John Locke. HAHAHA! This one is laughable. What Barton is doing is relying on a ridiculous and bogus study done by one Donald S. Lutz, who made the incorrect assertion that the Bible (and Deuteronomy in particular) were the most quoted sources of the founding. Not so. Instead of listing all the ways that this study is utter B.S. I will simply refer you to this source, which does a more thorough job than I could ever do. Bottom line: Barton is, ONCE AGAIN, completely wrong on this matter...and Batman eats it up! Besides, it should be hysterical to one and all when they hear Batman and Robin talk about the Law of Moses being a foundation for American republicanism. I mean, who out there would want to return to the Law of Moses? And, of course, Barton's stupid comment that it was easier to find tablets of the 10 Commandments in a government building than in a church is absurd for the very same reasons, not to mention that several of these 10 Commandments (which Batman and Robin claim are the foundation of our nation) are actually unconstitutional. Who is stupid enough to think that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," "Remember the Sabbath day and to keep it holy," "Don't have engraven images," and "Don't commit adultery" are constitutional? Moral sure, but constitutional? Not a chance.

At 5:50 Barton completely screws up Francis Hopkinson, whom he claims was the designer of the original American flag. Not so. Though Hopkinson tried to profit from such a claim, Congress basically told him to go pound sand, due to the fact that he had zero claim to such a distinction. Barton also mentions that Hopkinson wrote a "hymn book" based on Psalms. Well, he also did one entitled, "Temple of Minerva" which is, of course, a pagan holy place.

Part 3 of the Batman and Robin fiasco:


At the beginning, Glenn Beck makes the INCREDIBLY STUPID remark that we should "fall on our knees and thank God for Fox News." Uh...I think I speak for most when I say "to HELL with FOX News." But anyway, I digress...

Ok, so Barton and Beck go off on this Thomas Jefferson/John Adams friendship. Now, it's true that Rush claimed to have had a dream in which he saw Jefferson and Adams become friends again after their long political feud (a beautiful story) but...

Barton is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY misrepresenting the John Adams letter. Again I will defer to Chris Rodda who does a much better debunking of this crap than I could. Click here to see it. Rodda reveals just how big of a liar Barton is.

At 3:30 we get to see Beck's overly-inflated sense of self when he compares himself and his role to that of the founders. SPARE US, Batman! And then Robin chimes in by saying that 17 founders lost everything they owned, 4 lost wives 5 prisoner of war, etc., etc. etc. Well, all he needed to do was go to Snopes to see that most of those claims are the stuff of legend. Click here to see for yourself.

At 6:15 you hear Batman thank Robin for being on the Texas school board. Well, we can thank Barton for getting Thomas Jefferson removed from the curriculum. INCREDIBLY stupid thing to do.

At 7:00 Barton tries to say that George Washington was a Christian. Conveniently, Barton forgets to mention the fact that Washington never took communion, refused to pray on his knees, and never made any formal claims to any one religion. Speaking personally, the religion of Washington (and Jefferson) are of particular interest. If you really want to have a breakdown of what Washington believed click here. And for Jefferson click here. Don't accept that "progressives" (Beck's favorite scary word) were somehow involved in a conspiracy to re-write American history. If you believe that, chances are you believe in Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and the alien spaceship at Roswell.

Part 4 of the stupid fest:


Ok, this one REALLY pisses me off because Jefferson is my favorite founder. Jefferson DID NOT sign any document with, "In the Year of our Lord, Christ, nor did he create a church or have the Marine band play Christian hymns. Again, here is Chris Rodda to expose Barton's crap (Click here).

Getting back to the Batman and Robin video, at 2:15 Robin mentions that Benjamin Franklin called for a prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Well, that's true, but Barton "CONVENIENTLY" forgets to mention that the prayer suggestion was unanimously rejected by the Congress. In fact, legend has it that Alexander Hamilton told Franklin that "The delegates have no need of foreign aid." And no, they DID NOT go to church! That's a total lie! Another tidbit ignored by the Dynamic Duo!

**For a breakdown of Franklin's real religious beliefs click here.**

AAAHHHH...these IDIOTS! At 4:40 they mention Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. This was essentially Jefferson's personal Bible. Jefferson (and Batman forgets to mention this) actually removed EVERY SINGLE miracle that Jesus ever performed. Why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM! Jefferson saw Jesus as a Aristotle type...not the Son of God. Barton and Beck are so stupid that they cannot pick this up...that or they don't want to tell the truth. And no, Congress didn't print this! Another lie!

In conclusion, the lies, half truths and ignorance of Glenn Beck and David Barton (Batman and Robin) gets attention for one single reason: the stupidity of the masses. If people actually took the time to see how bogus this version of history really is, they would quit giving these clowns the time of day. Perhaps Martin Luther King said it best when he declared:

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Perhaps Batman and Robin should return to the 2nd Grade???