"Listen my children and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five; Hardly a man is now alive Who remembers that famous day and year."
These opening lines to Henry Longfellow's epic poem "Paul Revere's Ride" have been recited countless times in classrooms across this country. In fact, most Americans only know of Paul Revere thanks to Longfellow’s 1860 poem, which was written almost 100 years after the actual event. Within the historical community, however, Revere's now famous ride has fallen under scrutiny. Was it really as dramatic and eventful as Longfellow's now infamous poem depicts? Or is Revere's "ride" more along the lines of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and an invisible treasure map existing on the back of the Declaration of Independence?
First off, we can all rest assured that Paul Revere never shouted, "the British are coming." To have done so would have destroyed the secrecy that was needed for the mission. British soldiers were afoot everywhere, with the intent of stopping riders like Revere. We can also be certain that Paul Revere was not alone on April 18, 1775. After receiving his initial instructions from Dr. Joseph Warren to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the impending doom, perhaps as many as fifty other riders were caught up in the excitement of the moment and set out to warn the countryside. In addition, Revere was also instructed by Dr. Warren to gather intelligence on the strength of the British army, where others would signal by lamp light the direction the British army was heading (remember "one if by land, two if by sea?"). Here's Paul Revere's initial account of that evening:
I was sent for by Docr. Joseph Warren about 10 oClock that evening, and desired, “to go to Lexington and inform Mr. Samuel Adams, and the Hon. John Hancock Esqr. that there was a number of Soldiers composed of the Light troops and Grenadiers marching to the bottom of the common, where was a number Boats to receive them, and it was supposed, that they were going to Lexington, by the way of Watertown to take them, Mess. Adams and Hancock or to Concord."
And though Revere was not alone on his "ride", and despite the fact that things were not as poetic as Longfellow makes them seem, Revere's mission was far from simple. In fact, Revere faced danger on more than one occasion. Revere evaded a Royal Navy blockade, avoided being shot by British scouts, escaped capture at Charlestown and was eventually caught in Lincoln. Revere's horse was confiscated and he was forced to march back to town at gunpoint. In fact, Revere was never able to warn Samuel Adams or John Hancock that the "British were coming." Fortunately both men were warned by other riders of the impending danger that was approaching, as was the militia, which prepared for the infamous Battle of Lexington and Concord.
To be certain, Revere was an important figure inside Boston's revolutionary underground. He had been entrusted (along with many others) to carry out important assignments that were critical during the early years of Boston's rebellion. In fact, one of the most important things Revere ever did (and he's almost never remembered for it) was to create the all-important engraving of the "Boston Massacre", which Samuel Adams yielded as a powerful propaganda sword that pierced the heart of many fellow Bostonians. And yes, Revere's depiction of the Boston Massacre was every bit as over-dramatic as was Longfellow's infamous Paul Revere poem.
Thanks in large part to his devotion to the "cause of liberty," Revere was a welcomed member of several influential organizations within Boston, most notably the Masonic Lodge in Boston where he rubbed elbows with other key players in America's quest for independence. As a result, Revere's name became synonymous with bravery and devotion. And though his role was really no different than the other nameless, faceless "riders," Revere's legacy has stood out. It's no wonder why Longfellow would seize his story as the one to embellish through poetry. And though his now infamous ride may be entwined with legend and folklore, Paul Revere's involvement in the early years of Boston's revolutionary fervor are both influential and worthy of further study.
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.
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???
If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are many (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.
And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.
Which bring us to May 6, 2010. Today is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:
Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:
The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.
And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.
And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people 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.
Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:
The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."
Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.
~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.
And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."
Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:
When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.
In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.
In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.
After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?
The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."
Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.
And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done at my other blog (American Creation) entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:
Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.
And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.
And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:
"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6
Unless you have been living under a rock, you are aware of the sudden emergence of the "tea party" movements that have captured the attention of many "super conservatives" this past year. In the spirit of the original tea party of old, many of these new activists fancy themselves as revolutionaries who are crying out in the dark for freedom from oppression and tyranny.
But just how similar are the "tea parties" of today with those of old?
Comparing the Boston Tea Party to the various tea parties that have taken place across the nation in recent months is complex to say the least. After all, we're trying to compare 18th century America with today's society. Most of the social, cultural, and technological norms are completely different now. The majority of early Americans wouldn't even recognize modern America as being their "stomping ground." This is probably the most important (and obvious) distinction to make, especially when we consider just how much tea party pundits (most notably Glenn Beck) have tried to cast the founders in a modern light.
With that said, here are a few specific differences between the tea parties of today and the original tea party of 1773:
1. First off, the legacy of the Boston Tea Party (1773) has been used on a number of occasions. In fact, Mahondas Gandhi (not Mahatma Gandhi) invoked the legacy of the Boston Tea Party in 1908 by inspiring his fellow Indians to burn British registration cards. In the early 1970s there were a large number of gatherings that called themselves "tea parties." At one “I Love America” rally led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, followers were asked to burn bags of tea, symbolizing the people’s anger over the newly-enacted Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the 200th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, protestors gathered at the White House to call for the impeachment of then President Richard Nixon by throwing bags of tea on the White House lawn. In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor. And finally, in 2006 a breakoff of the Libertarian Party called the “Boston Tea Party” was founded.
2. The motivations behind today’s tea parties and the original tea party of 1773 are completely different. The Boston Tea Party (1773) was actually a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut, as opposed to today’s tea parties which protested rising taxes and an increase of government spending, etc. In 1773, The British East India Company was nearly bankrupt and instead of providing a "bailout" or government loan, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which eliminated for this company the duty on tea exported to America. As a result, smaller merchants in the colonies were expected to suffer, since they didn’t received the same tax cuts as the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the peak of a boycott against a company that got huge corporate tax cuts granted to them by the government. Once the ships from the East India Company arrived in Boston’s harbor, men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock were quick to seize the opportunity and turn it into a political advantage by rallying local Boston merchants to their cause. On December 16, after assembling at the Old South Church to express their grievances, Samuel Adams stood and gave the “secret message” to his devout “Sons of Liberty” (and Masons) to assemble at the docks, where they had their “tea party.” 342 chests of tea (property of the East India Company) were seized and dumped into Boston Harbor.
Now, this is often contrary to what many people know about the Boston Tea Party. After all, most Americans believe that the American Revolution was the result of taxes being levied against them by Britain. This isn’t 100% accurate. To understand the role that taxes played in the American Revolution we must go back to 1765. The British Empire, fresh of its complete rout of the French in the French and Indian War, was faced with a mounting debt as a result of that war. As a result, Parliament decided to levy a small tax (roughly one percent) against the colonists in America. Parliament believed that the colonists needed to play off a small portion of Britain’s debt, since the war had been fought to protect the colonists in the first place. As a result, the STAMP ACT was passed. However, the colonists exploded in anger and protested the act. Led by Boston Revolutionary Samuel Adams, the colonists succeeded in having the Stamp Act repealed. One of the main reasons for their success was their usage of the old propaganda phrase, “No taxation without representation,” which had been coined in 1750 by Reverend John Mayhew. By repealing the Stamp Act, the colonists believed they had succeeded and that everything would be ok.
The colonists’ excitement, however, was to be short-lived. In 1766 Parliament passed the often forgotten DECLARATORY ACT, which stated that Parliament had the right and power to govern its colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.” In essence, this became the catalyst for the revolution. It created a “showdown” between the legitimacy of Parliament’s rule and the sovereignty of the colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would quote the Declaratory Act several times in the Declaration of Independence.
So, while taxes were an issue early on, it is important to recognize that they played a very limited role in bringing about the American Revolution.
3. The Boston Tea Party was an illegal action of a mob that committed assault, theft, destruction of property, etc. The tea parties of today did no such thing (at least to my knowledge). The Boston Tea Party was literally an act of defiance to the laws of the British. The participants were willfully and knowingly being insubordinate to the will of King and country. The results of their actions caused the British to impose a complete blockade of Boston Harbor. Today’s tea parties, while an expression of anger/intolerance of current government decisions, do not invoke the same response nor do they take the same radical steps of defiance.
4. Today’s tea party participants claim that their petition was a “grass roots” movement led and organized by the people, a claim that is hotly debated by many. The Boston Tea Party, however, was not. It was led by prominent and influential Bostonians like Samuel Adams and the VEEEERY rich John Hancock, who, interestingly enough, stood to lose a fortune by the East India Company. His motives were not as pure as we are often taught.
5. The Boston Tea Party was NOT assembled out of a growing concern over the size of government, government spending, etc. Instead it was assembled on issues like colonial sovereignty v. Parliamentary rule, corporate tax breaks, and a lack of government funding for the development of the American merchant class. In fact, this last point (the development of the American merchant class) was a fundamental issue for Thomas Paine in his extremely influential pamphlet, “Common Sense.” It’s worth noting that political activist Glenn Beck has quoted Thomas Paine on several occasions, especially during the tea parties of the last year. However, Beck neglects to recognize the fact that Paine was IN FAVOR of bigger government, more government spending, higher taxes, welfare programs, etc.
And while the differences between the tea parties of today and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 are vast, it’s important to remember that at the heart they share the same basic principle: that the people are where sovereignty and power ultimately reside…at least that is the hope of its participants, whether in the 18th or 21st century. And it’s likely that we haven’t seen the end to the legacy of the Boston Tea Party!!!
A Fundamental Error in the "Key Founders" Argument
Over at my other blog (American Creation), one of the central topics of conversation centers around the role that the "key founders" had in establishing the American republic. Usually this conversation focuses on five or six "big guns" of the founding era -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, John Adams, and sometimes Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine -- whose contributions to the American Revolution, Constitution, etc. are considered to be of greater value or influence than others. And while it is true that the contributions of some founders were greater than others -- who would be silly enough suggest that someone like John Rutledge was as important to the American Revolution as George Washington -- I often find myself being somewhat uncomfortable with the term "key founders." After all, what constitutes someone becoming a "key" founder? What criteria do we use when selecting individuals for this ultra-exclusive classification? For example, could a woman ever be considered a "key" founder? Did not Abigail Adams play a pivotal role in supporting John through the ups and downs of his political career? And what of the many influential and prominent founders who supported revolution but rejected the Constitution? Has their legacy been tainted in some way for being on the "wrong side" of history?
Of course the answer to these questions are complex to say the least. After all, one could easily argue -- without being sexist mind you -- that women had virtually no role in the founding of America. There were no women present at the Continental Congress/Constitutional Convention, nor were women allowed to vote/run for office in the early years of the infant American nation. In addition, one could also logically conclude that those who supported revolution but rejected the Constitution -- Patrick Henry comes to mind -- are of somewhat lesser importance due to the simple fact that their beliefs were overshadowed by those of the "key" founders. Of course this should not suggest that the contributions of women or those who opposed the Constitution are irrelevant, but it does illustrate the fact that some "key" individuals did play a greater role than others in the eventual establishment of the America we have come to accept.
With that said, I believe that many historians/students of early America/amateur historians/whatever else you wanna call them, are oftentimes quite discriminatory in their selection of "key" founders. It is almost always the case that these "key" founders are men of elite status who embraced the Revolution, accepted the Constitution, and, for the purposes of our blog, were at least ambiguous in their devotion to the Christian religion. For example, Gordon Wood, who the majority of readers on this blog consider to be the finest historian of early America, only mentions seven founders -- Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, and Burr -- in his book Revolutionary Characters. And while I am sure that Wood himself recognizes the fact that these seven men were far from alone in their endeavors to create a new nation, the fact remains that many important founders are often omitted from the historical dialogue.
Such is the case with Samuel Adams. Despite the fact that he is regularly referred to as the "Father" of the American Revolution -- historian Joseph Ellis calls him the "Lenin of the American Revolution" -- Samuel Adams is almost always omitted from the "Key Founder" classification. In our modern era, Sam Adams has probably become more of a beer symbol than a revolutionary icon. So how is it that a man who is often considered the father of the American Revolution, adversary of the Stamp Act, organizer of the Sons of Liberty, and all-around champion of the common man be so blatantly ignored?
In his excellent bio of Samuel Adams, author Mark Puls presents a compelling case that the modern historiography of Sam Adams has given most Americans a very skewed and incomplete understanding of the man who Thomas Jefferson referred to as, "truly the man of the Revolution." and "the patriarch of liberty." He writes:
Despite his many achievements and their lasting impact, his legacy goes largely unheralded in recent years, even during a wave of interest about the Founding generation. While Adams was hailed as the "Father of the American Revolution" in his own time, his role in the birth of a nation has been overshadowed by founders who went on to become U.S. Presidents or by men who rose to prominence during the inaugural federal government. Biographers and historians have assigned more significant places to men who had little influence before the Revolution in shaping the birth of the nation or forging its foundational ideals.
[...]
Since Adams' death in 1803, the assessments of his contributions to American history have undergone several revisions, based in part on the views of the Revolution itself. Nineteenth-century historians such as George Bancroft, in his 1882 exhaustive, six-volume "History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent" saw Adams as the major figure in American movement leading up to the war: "No one had equal influence over the popular mind." James K. Hosmer's 1888 biography, "Samuel Adams" ranked his subject second only to George Washington in importance to the founding of the United States.
[...]
Until the 1920s, historians treated Adams in the same generally positive light accorded the other Founding Fathers. A revision of his record began with Ralph V. Harlow's 1923 "Samuel Adams -- Promoter of the American Revolution", which portrayed Adams as a propagandist and zealot, a view furthered by John C. Miller's 1936 "Samuel Adams: A Pioneer in Propaganda".
In recent years, Samuel Adams has been treated by historians as a propagandist who stoked the passions of the poor and built resentment against the British to further his own career. Scholars such as Russell Kirk dismissed Adams as a "well-born demagogue" in his 1974 "The Roots of American Order."
Here Puls makes his disgust with the current Sam Adams historiography clear. The idea that the "father" of the American Revolution was a rabble-rousing, doomsday propagandist who preyed upon the ignorance and vulnerability of the poor tends to permeate the current historical interpretation of Sam Adams. Even the recent HBO miniseries, John Adams attempts to portray Samuel Adams as being little more than an ultra-passionate, angry, and vindictive leader of the masses:
Puls continues:
But the historical record and an examination of Adams' writings tell a very different story. Adams and the other colonists involved in the civil rights struggle were not an unthinking mob, but a highly reflective people who stated their case with reasoned arguments in pamphlets, letters, petitions, and newspaper articles. In his writings, Adams placed his faith in a logical persuasion, devoid of feckless emotional appeals, in the same manner of modern newspaper columnists. His readers were highly literate, and well versed in the allusions to ancient Latin and Greek writers and examples from antiquity from which he drew analogies. His crusade eventually drew in intellectuals such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, as well as affluent men such as George Washington and John Hancock. Mob violence was common in England during the eighteenth century, but these protests never achieved any specific political goals. It's highly unlikely that the successful colonial resistance in the prewar years as well as the Revolution itself and the creation of an independent nation would have occurred without the involvement of the educated and affluent.
If the founders themselves were allowed to select the "key" contributors to the American cause, Samuel Adams may very well be among them. As historian Joseph Ellis states:"In the midst of the current surge of interest in the founders, the most conspicuous absence is that of Samuel Adams, an absence that most of his peers would have found inexplicable."
Or as his second cousin, John Adams stated, "Without the character of Samuel Adams, the true history of the American Revolution can never be written. For fifty years his pen, his tongue, his activity, were constantly exerted for his country without fee or reward."
Perhaps we could make one more slot for dear Sam in our "Key Founders" category?
"Listen my children and you shall hear
To be certain, Revere was an important figure inside Boston's revolutionary underground. He had been entrusted (along with many others) to carry out important assignments that were critical during the early years of Boston's rebellion. In fact, one of the most important things Revere ever did (and he's almost never remembered for it) was to create the all-important engraving of the "Boston Massacre", which Samuel Adams yielded as a powerful propaganda sword that pierced the heart of many fellow Bostonians. And yes, Revere's depiction of the Boston Massacre was every bit as over-dramatic as was Longfellow's infamous Paul Revere poem.
