Did Betsy Ross Create the First American Flag?

The contributions of women during the American Revolution (and in virtually every other era of history) have often been overlooked or obscured thanks in part to the chauvinistic trends of early historiography. Despite such trends, the occasional feminine hero has emerged from this hazy background to claim their rightful place alongside other fellow revolutionaries. Women like Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison and "Molly Pitcher" are remembered in countless paintings, monuments, and history books for their contributions to the "cause of liberty."

Arguably one of the most popular female figures of the American Revolution is Betsy Ross. In fact, the Betsy Ross House and Memorial in Philadelphia is one of the most visited tourist attractions in all of Philadelphia. We of course remember Ross as the original designer of the first American flag in 1776. In fact, the first American flag is rarely referred to as the "Flag of '76" but as the "Betsy Ross Flag."

But is the story true? Did Betsy Ross really create the first American flag?

As the legend states, Betsy Ross, who had recently lost her first husband in the war, received a visit from none other than General George Washington and two other members of the Continental Congress, who admonished Ross to create a flag of "thirteen stripes and thirteen stars." The stars were to be in a circular pattern, to symbolize the fact that, "no colony would be viewed above another." The legend goes on to state that as soon as George Washington's boots stepped out her front door, Betsy Ross set about making the first American flag.

So how true is this story?

Unfortunately there are little or no primary sources to prove the Betsy Ross story. In fact, the only evidence we have to defend the Betsy Ross story comes from Ross' grandson, William Canby. Ross supposedly related her story to Canby (who was eleven at the time) while on her deathbed. Canby then waited another 30 years before publicly announcing the story in a paper to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (click here to read a copy of Canby's paper). By then, roughly 100 years had passed since the alleged visit between General Washington and Betsy Ross.

Though the story cannot be 100% confirmed, it is important to remember that it also cannot be completely rejected. To be certain, Betsy Ross and her first husband had established a semi-successful upholstery business in Philadelphia. If George Washington had commissioned Ross to make the flag, perhaps he learned of her business while attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Skeptics, however, argue that there is little likelihood that Washington would have visited Ross in 1776, due to the fact that he was extraordinarily busy and quickly departed the city to take command of the Continental Army. But again, none of this conclusively refutes William Canby's story (though it does cast some serious doubt on it). Historiann's review of Marla Miller's Betsy Ross and the Making of America best describes this virtual "tug-o-war" over Betsy Ross' ultimate legacy:

Betsy’s collaboration with the Revolutionary government as a flag maker can’t be dismisssed merely as wartime profiteering or political exigency. Miller offers two full chapters on the question of Betsy’s contribution to creating the U.S. national flag in the late spring of 1777, and concludes that there’s both verifiable merit and dubious myths in the family tales her daughter and grandson told in the nineteenth century. As we have learned about “The” Declaration of Independence, there were many flags for many different purposes and many different flagmakers working in Philadelphia at the time. Miller concludes that Betsy was certainly one of them, and that her work for the war effort as the very young widow Ross probably reflected her real political sympathies. On the other hand, while there’s no evidence one way or the other as to what kind of work she did during the British occupation of Philadelphia in 1777-78, Miller concludes that "it’s hard to imagine her finding among the suffering community of rebellious Philadelphians enough sources of income that she could refuse on principle to fabricate tassels, mattresses, chair covers, or camp equipage for enemy quarters during the entire course of the occupation," (Hat tip: John Fea)

In reality, the question of whether or not Betsy Ross made the first American flag actually misses the point. During the American Revolution, literally dozens of different flags were used to commemorate a large assortment of events. Such is the case with our American flag as well. As historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Laurel Thacher Ulrich points out:

There is really no point in arguing over who made the first flag because there wasn't one. The stars and stripes that we know today had multiple parents and dozens of siblings. True, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a cryptic resolution specifying that "the flag of the thirteen united States be 13 stripes alternate red and white, that the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field representing a new constellation," but nobody specified the shape of the flag, the arrangement of the stars, or the ratio of the canton to the field. In October 1778, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams actually told the Neapolitan ambassador that "the flag of the United States of America consists of thirteen stripes, alternately red, white and blue." Flag sheets from the 1780s and 1790s do in fact show flags with three-colored stripes. As for Betsy's nifty five-pointed star, a Smithsonian study showed that four-, six-, and eight-pointed stars were far more common. Although Charles Wilson Peale's 1779 painting of George Washington at Princeton shows stars in a circular arrangement on the general's flag, the stars themselves have six points.

Despite the controversy, Betsy Ross (and the flag she allegedly created) are likely to remain shrouded in mystery for generations to come. Perhaps the mystery is what makes the "Betsy Ross Flag" so intriguing. After all, the thought of a lonely and patriotic widow, bravely sewing together America's first colors is as American as the treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence.

But that's a story for another day.

James Otis: Forgotten Founder

On the Laws of Nature and
Rebellion to Authority

When we think about the great Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, the obvious names that pop up on everyone's radar include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc., etc., etc. Rarely does the name James Otis ever show up. In fact, most Americans are probably unfamiliar with this very important and influential man and the brief role he played during the American Revolution.

From the onset of the rising conflict between Britain and its colonies, Otis was an important and passionate participant. And though Thomas Paine would eventually emerge as the Revolution's premiere writer thanks to Common Sense, James Otis was one of the original masters of the pen. His blockbuster piece of the time, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, served to help further the growing belief that the rights of the people were derived not from man but from God and the laws of nature. Otis writes:

Is not government founded on grace? No. Nor on force? No. Nor on compact? Nor property? Not altogether on either. Has it any solid foundation, any chief cornerstone but what accident, chance, or confusion may lay one moment and destroy the next? I think it has an everlasing foundation in the unchangeable will of GOD, the author of nature, whose laws never vary. The same omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely good and gracious Creator of the universe who has been pleased to make it necessary that what we call matter should gravitate for the celestial bodies to roll round their axes, dance their orbits, and perform their various revolutions in that beautiful order and concern which we all admire has made it equally necessary that from Adam and Eve to these degenerate days the different sexes should sweetly attract each other, form societies of single families, of which larger bodies and communities are as naturally, mechanically, and necessarily combined as the dew of heaven and the soft distilling rain is collected by the all-enlivening heat of the sun. Government is therefore most evidently founded on the necessities of our nature. It is by no means an arbitrary thing depending merely on compact or human will for its existence.

[...]

The form of government is by nature and by right so far left to the individuals of each society that they may alter it from a simple democracy or government of all over all to any other form they please. Such alteration may and ought to be made by express compact. But how seldom this right has been asserted, history will abundantly show. For once that it has been fairly settled by compact, fraud, force, or accident have determined it an hundred times. As the people have gained upon tyrants, these have been obliged to relax only till a fairer opportunity has put it in their power to encroach again.

But if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not prove a right to tyrannize. There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature and the grant of GOD Almight, who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so if they please.

And though Otis clearly appeals to the laws of nature justifying resistance to tyrants, taxation, etc., he also acknowledges the sovereignty of the British king and the superiority of the "mother country's" laws:

The sum of my argument is: that civil government is of God; that the administrators of it were originally the whole people; that they might have devolved it on whom they pleased; that this devolution is fiduciary, for the good of the whole; that by the British constitution this devolution is on the King, Lords and Commons, the supreme, sacred and uncontrollable legislative power not only in the realm but through the dominions; that by the abdication, the original compact was broken to pieces; that by the Revolution it was renewed and more firmly established, and the rights and liberties of the subject in all parts of the dominions more fully explained and confirmed; that in consequence of this establishment and the acts of succession and union, His Majesty GEORGE III is rightful King and sovereign, and, with his Parliament, the supreme legislative of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging; that this constitution is the most free one and by far the best now existing on earth; that by this constitution every man in the dominions is a free man; that no parts of His Majesty's dominions can be taxed without their consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature; that the refusal of this would seem to be a contradiction in practice to the theory of the constritution; that the colonies are subordinate dominions and are now in such a state as to make it best for the good of the whole that they should not only be continued in the enjoyment of subordinate legislation but be also represented in some proportion to their number and estates in the grand legislature of the nation; that this would firmly unite all parts of the British empire in the greater peace and prosperity, and render it invulnerable and perpetual.

Now, perhaps Otis was simply closing out his pamphlet by offering a brief, brown-nosing compliment to Britain and the King. Perhaps Otis didn't want to cause too many ripples in the pool. Or perhaps Otis is laying some of the early groundwork that would later be used to justify rebellion against kings. In Otis' mind, the British king is the sovereign and rightful executive of government so long as he/she accepts the fact (established by the laws of nature themselves) that all men are inherently free. The king's authority is the result of the people's willingness to concede power into his/her hands and not the result of a heavenly mandate. Otis justifies this belief by appealing to Hobbes' Social Contract theory in which the governors and the governed seek to find an agreeable equilibrium. As a result, Otis' ideas were based more on natural law than on any belief in Divine Right Kingship. In consequence, Otis was able to avoid many of the Romans 13/submit to authority in the name of God arguments, which served to make his argument even more appealing.

And though Otis' views on natural religion and rebellion to authority are hardly unique (their origins go WAAAAAAY back) it is important that we recognize the fact that his works were among the earliest sparks that helped to ignite a virtual lightning storm in the American colonies (appropriate analogy, since it was a lightning strike that killed Otis in 1783). Otis' contributions may have been relatively small when juxtaposed with those of the "key founders" but they are, nonetheless, extremely noteworthy.

***Up next: James Otis on the abolition of slavery***

Thomas Jefferson on the Bible in Public School

We’ve all heard it said that our Founding Fathers would be appalled at the fact that religion – particularly the Bible and other Christian teachings -- has been removed from the public school system’s curriculum. As a result, a number of Christian enthusiasts have fought tirelessly over the years for the inclusion of prayers in school, classes on the Bible, etc. To lend support for these causes, a number of "Christian Nation" apologists have appealed to the legacy of our Founding Fathers and their alleged loyalty to the Holy Scriptures. The ultra conservative Christian group, Wallbuilders is a perfect example of this phenomenon. On their website, they point to the establishment of the American Bible Society as evidence that our nation’s founding was based on biblical doctrine. In addition, Wallbuilders makes the claim that, “the signers of the Declaration of Independence firmly believed in the Bible as the primary text in America’s schools.” [1]

While there were a number of signers to the Declaration of Independence that believed in making the Bible the premiere text for American schools, a larger number were against such an idea. After all, the teaching of the Bible in a school setting brought up a number of church/state issues that have continued to our present day.

The foremost advocate against the use of the Bible – as many of you can easily imagine – was none other than the Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson. As we all know, Jefferson was a passionate proponent for religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In addition, Jefferson was also a devout supporter of education reform. Jefferson believed that a secularized education, free from the shackles of religious piety would create a superior learning environment. It was largely due to this conviction that Jefferson established Mr. Jefferson’s University, or the University of Virginia as it is known today.

For Jefferson, the instruction of biblical or Christian doctrine took a back seat to the more important lessons of ancient history and philosophy. As Jefferson stated:

“Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history.” [2]

A number of Christian apologists – David Barton in particular – have insisted that Jefferson not only supported the study of the Bible in public schools, but in fact participated in its teaching. This myth is not only the result of over enthusiasm, but also the result of poor historical research and knowledge. As Jim Allison states:

"On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the following claim:

'Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. Notice why Jefferson felt the Bible to be essential in any successful plan of education: I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.'

Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public Schools of Washington," in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127. Barton's quotation from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last Words of Saints and Sinners, 1969.

Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:

On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in
which:

...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin language.

As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an answer to that question." [3]

Just another David Barton blunder I suppose. And yes, this is the same man that Glenn Beck hails as "the finest American historian."

Ugh!

Notes:
[1] Wallbuilders. “The Aitken Bible.” http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=46, accessed July 23, 2008.
[2] dministration of Laws and the Description of Laws?
[3] http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg6.htm

The United States in the Bible

Another Christian Nationalist
Distorts History

Here is an interesting video I found while playing around on Godtube -- a priceless database for Christian over-zealotry. This particular video is one in a series entitled, The Prophesy Code, which expounds upon a number of alleged biblical prophesies regarding the last days. In this edition, Pastor Doug Batchelor, an evangelist of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, uses the Bible to explain what he believes is a providential (and eternal) destiny for the United States.

Most of the biblical references that Batchelor cites come out of the Book of Revelation, which is not all that surprising since Revelation has been cited by most apocalyptic prophesy seekers. What is so surprising about Batchelor's understanding of biblical prophesy -- though he is certainly not alone in this respect -- is how much conjecture and innuendo he invokes when explaining the "prophesies" of the Bible and how they relate to the United States. In short, it's simply more of the same Christian Nationalism that seeks to revise (or twist) history and scripture to fit a particular agenda.

One particular "prophesy" that I found interesting was that of the Catholic Church, which Batchelor proclaims to be "a great whore on many waters." To prove this belief, Batchelor points to Revelation 17 and how its verses allegedly declare the Catholic Church to be an abomination. Again, an example of innuendo being used to hint at a very obscure passage of scripture.

Batchelor's bizarre proclamation that the demise of the Catholic Church -- which he claims was the result of Napoleon Bonaparte -- would coincide with the rise of the United States is of particular interest. His interpretation of America's founding is full of typical Christian Nationalism, which he twists to support his biblical "prophesy." I especially enjoyed his assertion that the American colonists found a continent of "barren land" waiting for them to cultivate it. Obviously Batchelor is unaware of the millions of Native Americans who called this land home and were the unfortunate victims of disease, warfare, etc.

And then there is Batchelor's strange comparison of how the United States -- at least in our day -- will become a second Rome or Vatican of sorts. Batchelor preaches that the United States will somehow prevent open worship and will therefore, "speak as a dragon." Obviously Batchelor is appealing to the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine that the Lord's Sabbath is Saturday, and that the United States will at some future date prevent worship on that day.

Anyway, here is the video. It is a real "gem" so enjoy!

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume XVIII

Here is yet another installment in my on again/off again series of old cartoons that are full of either racism and/or propaganda. In this installment, entitled Der Fuehrer's Face from 1942, Donald Duck dreams that he has become a Nazi. In the process, he loses his sense of individualism as he is indoctrinated into the Nazi war machine. Fortunately, it's only a dream and Donald Duck awakes to find himself in the good ol' U.S.A. Enjoy:

Doc Holliday's Grave ("I'm your Huckleberry")

"You're no daisy...you're no daisy at all"

This weekend, my family took a brief trip to my home town (Grand Junction, Co) to see friends and family. During that trip, we decided to stop off in Glenwood Springs to pay a visit to a legend.

In the late 1800s, renowned gunman/gambler/dentist/scholar/drinker John "Doc" Holliday traveled to Glenwood Springs, Co. in the hopes that the air and hot springs would help to alleviate his severe case of tuberculosis. Sadly, Mr. Holliday did not find the relief he was looking for. He died and was buried on November 8, 1887.

Doc Holliday, who was originally born and raised in Georgia, was a southern gentleman who benefited greatly from both a generous family and a keen intellect. As a young boy, Holliday was given a strong classical education that centered on math, philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, Latin, French and literature. In addition, Holliday studied dentistry in Philadelphia, after which he returned to Georgia to begin a short but successful practice. With his education and family name behind him, Holliday was, by all accounts, the quintessential post-Civil War southern gentleman of his era. In fact, his cousin, Margaret Mitchell, allegedly used Doc Holliday as the inspiration for the character Ashley Wilkes in her little, tiny book she called Gone With the Wind.

Sadly (or perhaps thankfully depending upon your persuasion), fate would have a different path for the "good doctor." After contracting tuberculosis, Holliday found it hard to continue his dental practice. After all, who wants a sick doctor coughing into their mouth! In addition, Holliday discovered that he had both a gift and a love for a completely different art form: GAMBLING!

Of course Holliday is better known for his friendship with Wyatt Earp and his alleged prowess with a firearm. Legend (and I emphasize the word LEGEND) has it that Holliday was as fast, if not faster, than Wild Bill Hickok with a gun. And then of course there's the story of the OK Corral, where Holliday shot and killed Tom McLaury (one of his small handful of confirmed kills...and no, Holliday did NOT kill Johnny Ringo).

Anyway, years after his escapades with his buddy Wyatt Earp (though they were not as good of friends as many make them out to be) Holliday succumbed to his tuberculosis and died at the age of 36. Here are a few pics of our trip to his grave:

As you can see from this stone, this site is a MEMORIAL and not Holliday's actual grave. This will be discussed in more detail a little bit later.

Here you see that some guests have placed a few deck of cards (a royal flush no less) on Holliday's grave...an obvious tribute to his love of gambling.

As I mentioned before, the publicized memorial is NOT the actual resting place of Doc Holliday. In fact, there has been some speculation over the years as to the exact place where Holliday was buried. Some state that the ground was too frozen in November of 1887 to bury him at all and that he was placed in either a temporary grave and later moved, or that he wasn't buried at all, but later transported to Georgia where he was buried by family. Both theories hold very little water, as it has been proven that several burials took place around the same time as Doc's death. In addition, no record (or story) exists to support the allegation that Holliday was taken home to Georgia and buried there. In fact, most evidence suggests that Holliday was buried at the location of the following picture (located just a few feet from the memorial):

It is believed that this stone, which bears the marks "XXX" is the actual grave of Doc Holliday. Not only does the stone sit close to the location of his memorial but it also at one time carried an attached stone (that fit into the hole at the top) with an inscription that read "Died in his bed" and the exact dates of Holliday's birth and death. The "XXX" stone was meant to be a temporary marker, which was obviously never replaced. In addition, local spectators at the burial have long claimed that Holliday was buried at this location.

Here is a short video of our trip to Holliday's grave:


And finally, for your viewing pleasure, one of my favorite Doc Holliday clips from the movie Tombstone:



And yes, Doc Holliday really did use the expression "I'm your Huckleberry", which in his day meant, "I'll be your dance partner", but obviously was used by Holliday to signify that he'd be more than willing to fight.

Washington and the Newburgh Conspiracy

In 1781, after roughly eight years of bloody warfare, the infant United States of America appeared to be on the brink of victory. The American victory at Yorktown in the latter part of that year had severely damaged England's desire for a continued conflict with its colonies. In addition, France's involvement in the conflict (which cannot be underestimated as a critical success for the Americans) signified to the British that the American cause for independence was evolving into a virtual world war. Faced with such predicaments, the British were eventually forced to conclude a peace with their former colonies.

Contrary to what many historians believe, the Battle of Yorktown was NOT the coup de grâce that so many make it out to be. Before that peace could be negotiated, another two years would pass before both Britain and America would sit down at the bargaining table. During this time, the Continental Congress faced a severe financial crisis, in which they were unable (or possibly not fully willing) to support George Washington's army. Though the fighting had all but stopped, Washington was still forced to maintain the Continental Army until the final peace treaty was signed. As a result, the Continental Army suffered greatly in terms of hunger, lack of equipment, fatigue and cold.

In response to these justifiable grievances, several officers withing the Continental Army formed an anonymous pact to overthrow the Continental Congress and establish a new government. This coup was backed by several of Washington's most trusted men, who felt that the cause of liberty was being threatened by the politicians at home.

In the end, Washington was able to put down the rebellion, but it was far from easy. Here is an excellent article from the History Channel Website on how Washington handled what is now known as the Newburgh Conspiracy, which was, in my opinion, Washington's finest hour. As Washington's men conspired to lead their "valiant" charge and seize power for themselves, Washington was preparing his own response:

When word of the letter and its call for an unsanctioned meeting of officers reached him, Washington issued a general order forbidding any unsanctioned meetings and called for a general assembly of officers for March 15. At the meeting, Washington began his speech to the officers by saying, “Gentlemen: By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety! How unmilitary! And how subversive of all order and discipline...”

Washington continued by pledging, “to exert whatever ability I am possessed of, in your favor.” He added, “Let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress.”

When he finished, Washington removed a letter from his breast pocket that he had received from a member of the Continental Congress. He hesitated for a moment as he looked down at the letter before fumbling to retrieve a pair of spectacles from his pocket. Before reading the letter, Washington, in an almost apologetic tone said, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind.” The eyes of most of his audience filled with tears. The content of the letter became irrelevant as the assembled officers realized that Washington had given as much or more in the service of the new nation as any of them. Within minutes, the officers voted unanimously to express confidence in Congress and their country.

In a letter to the Continental Congress dated March 18, 1783, Washington wrote to assure the body that the unrest of officers was over, writing, “The result of the proceedings of the grand convention of the officers, which I have the honor of enclosing to your Excellency for the inspection of Congress, will, I flatter myself, be considered as the last glorious proof of patriotism which could have been given by men who aspired to the distinction of a Patriot army; and will not only confirm their claim to the justice, but will increase their title to the gratitude of their country.”

Random Pics from a While Back

I found a few random pictures from a few years ago that I wanted to make sure made their way onto this blog for long term preservation. I hope all the aunts, uncles and grandparents (and stalkers) will enjoy them:

Grandma Jones' 4th of July cake: 2007

Baby Zakary, just a couple of months old. The best eyes in the family!

Jaxson being Jaxson

Hanging out at Grandma's

Uncle Ryan and Zakary meet for the first time.

Sleepin' like a baby!

Jaxson and Uncle Scott jammin'

Getting ready for another Colorado winter

Despite what grandparents may think, Zakary was not always a quiet baby.

Our three-year-old (now almost 6) going on sixteen!

Great Grandma and her three Great Grandboys (she now has four)

Gordon Wood on "The Purpose of the Past"

When it comes to early American historians, none is better (in my opinion) than Gordon Wood. And of all the many books Wood has written, none is more forgotten (in my opinion) than The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History. In this book, Wood takes an in-depth look into how historiography (the history of history) has changed over the years, and how the role of history has become less important in American culture.

The book touches on a few issues that I have discussed on my blog. For example, Wood mentions the sad fact that American students are scoring worse in history exams than they are in math or reading. Wood attributes this decline of historical "literacy" to not only a general apathy towards the topic, but a decreased emphasis in its role in several academic circles. History is often seen as a silly little Humanities topic that has little or no legitimate meaning to a post-modern world. In addition, Wood argues that the emergence of "superpower" culture warriors, who are bent on twisting history and making it their own personal sword to wield into the battle of their choosing, are actually polluting true historical inquiry to a point where mora Americans believe the pundit nonsense than the truth. For these reasons, Wood argues that the study of history is even more important today than perhaps at any other time.

The Los Angeles Times has given Wood praise for this book, calling it "a breath of fresh air." In addition, the L.A. Times stated the following:

Like a referee blowing a whistle, Wood calls for a timeout, to pause and reflect on the condition of modern historiography. (You might think of Wood as a pendulum, stopping in mid-swing to offer up pearls of modest wisdom.) The core argument he presents is that the incendiary warfare between the popularizers and academics must stop. Whether it's a bestselling Albert Einstein biography published by Simon & Schuster or an esoteric university press case study on the Watts riots using deconstructionist Jacques Derrida and structuralist Michel Foucault as gurus, the historian's mission should be the same: to communicate the past to everyday people. To Wood, an audience is essential if historians are going to influence the consciousness of our times. "We Americans have such a thin and meager sense of history that we cannot get too much of it," he writes. "What we need more than anything is a deeper and fuller sense of the historical process, a sense of where we have come from and how we have become what we are."

Barnes & Noble's website also features a lengthy review of Wood's book, which is worthy of mention here.

As most of you already know, Gordon Wood won the Pulitzer Prize for his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution in 1997. He is considered by some to be the foremost historian of the American Revolution. Here is a link to Gordon Wood's website at Brown University.

Do "Reagan Conservatives" Follow Reagan?

Another Example of History
Being Misrepresented

Let's get right into it. Do "Reagan Conservatives" actually follow Ronald Reagan?

The quick answer: NO! Very few "Reagan Conservatives" today would be able to tell you very much about the man and his policies as president. Of course they are more than able to spew the rhetoric they've gleaned from their "Holy Trinity" of conservative doctrine (the Limbaugh, the Hannity and the Holy Beck), but beyond that, few have bothered to take an honest look at what "Good Ol' Dutch" actually stood for.

Why? Because if they did they would realize that Reagan himself would detest the tea-bagging, Paul Revere wannabe, doomsday rhetoric of 21st century neo-conservatism, which is more interested in twisting history, inflating a false sense of patriotism and making simple-minded stupidity a virtue (remember Joe the Plummer?). The conservatives who summon Reagan’s ghost for use in today’s arguments usually use him as a stand-in for doctrinal purity. Why? Because they have no real doctrine themselves.

Now, before you de-friend me on Facebook or start labeling me an evil, fascist, Nazi, Obama socialist hear me out. I am not trying to level an attack on Reagan here, nor am I saying that conservatism is a bad thing. As a person who generally favors conservative principles (i.e. fiscal responsibility, limited government, etc.) I believe that most RATIONAL Republicans embrace sound government principles that are far superior to those of their tax and spend, larger government opponents. Now, I say this in the general sense because I realize that there are Dems who favor less taxation and government, just like there are Republicans who are downright insane and stupid (Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.). In addition, I also recognize that Ronald Reagan was a successful president who did a lot of good for this nation. However, I do NOT believe that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I share the sentiments of the "Reagan Conservatives" who embrace the man as the Messiah of truth, justice and the American way. I also think it's silly for these "Reagan Conservatives" to hold the man up as something he was not. How do I know they are wrong? See for yourselves:

When speaking with a "Reagan Conservative" you will typically hear something in line with the following:

"I am not a Republican. I am a Reagan Conservative who stands for the principles which Reagan embodied, those being lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, a strong military, zero tolerance for terrorism, Christian values and immigration reform. In short, I believe, with Reagan, that government isn't the solution to problems; government is the problem." ~Sean Hannity, Conservative Victory, 2010

Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in American history...He slowed the growth of domestic spending by vetoing spending bills and by shutting down the federal bureaucracy. In fact, Ronald Reagan proved something that to this day economists, elite economists do not believe. Ronald Reagan lowered inflation during the midst of one of the most unbridled economies and its growth period in history. No economist thought that possible, but he did. He brought inflation down to 4.8% from its double-digit figure when he took office, and significantly. ~Rush Limbaugh, June 7, 2004.

Well, that sounds good to me too. Only one problem: It's not really true. Ronald Reagan didn't embrace these things like the "Reagan Conservatives" think he did. Here's what Reagan really believed:

Taxation and Spending
We've all heard the rhetoric about how AMAZING Reagan was with taxes. If you listen to the pundits its almost as if nobody paid any taxes of any kind during the "Glorious 80s." Sadly, the truth is something very different. As economist Paul Krugman points out:

Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

[...]

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility; or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was a huge increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent more in taxes than they did under JFK, Johnson and Carter.

In short, the man actually RAISED taxes when he knew it would benefit the country. That is one major reason he was a successful president. Reagan, like his idol FDR, knew that you had to be flexible with the economy. Sometimes you need to spend, other times you need to save. In short, Reagan understood that no fixed political position would solve problems. One needed to be willing to admit that the "other guy" had a point as well.

And how about fiscal spending? Wasn't Reagan the most fiscal president in the history of history? Isn't that was Rush and the like tell us?

Not so fast. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, Ronald Reagan's presidency incurred the third highest level of deficit spending in American history:
And though I recognize that Reagan's deficit spending was not as bad as some might think (Reagan and his advisors knew that they could outspend the Soviets into oblivion) this chart illustrates the fact that Reagan was not the anti-spending guy that the tea-nut "Reagan Conservative" crowd believes. Anti-spending? Anti-taxes? Not ol' Dutch!

Military and Terrorism
Ok, on this one we need to clarify a few things. One of the main reasons Reagan spent so much $$$ was to create a strong military. That's a reality. Sadly, the "Reagan Conservatives" seem to believe that this simple fact means that Reagan was for increasing ALL aspects of the military. Not so.

On page 222 of his "book" Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity, the self-anointed founder of "Reagan Conservatism":

We must be committed to retaining our position as the world's greatest superpower, by maintaining the world's strongest military and supporting our troops on and off the battlefield. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons and must persist in perfecting our strategic missile defenses. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons, we can never return to a world without them.

So "brave"; so "Patriotic", Sean. Only one problem. Here's what Reagan had to say on the issue:

Let's make no mistake. Reagan HATED war. He was from the WWII generation and knew first hand the horrible nature of it. In consequence, one of his primary goals was the complete eradication of all nuclear weapons. In December 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, which "requires destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force." Not only did Reagan want to control the Soviet nuclear stockpile but of ours as well!

As for terrorism, "Reagan Conservatives" are usually the first to uphold torture as a responsible, reliable practice:

On nearly every issue since the war on terror bean, Democrats have stood for the wrong principles and policies and have proved incompetent in carrying out their own policies as well...They [terrorists] have declared war on us and we're fighting a war and we know there is about 60-some odd detainees that have gone back to the battlefield. Why for the first time ever would we give rights to enemy combatants?...Waterboarding is a safe and effective tool for intelligence gathering." ~Sean Hannity on Fox's Hannity, broadcast Mar. 10, 2009.

Waterboarding is not torture. It's a horrible experience that does no harm." ~Glenn Beck, January 17, 2008.

Now let's see what Reagan had to say about torture. When speaking of the United Nations convention on torture he said:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Reagan was admant about prosecuting torture; a practice he detested. In fact, Reagan prosecuted those who were found to be practicing waterboarding, including this Texas Sheriff. So clearly it is impossible for a "Reagan Conservative" to approve of torture...that is...if they truly want to emulate Ronny boy.

These are just a few of the MANY obvious differences that exist between Ronald Reagan and the "Reagan Conservatives." If you want to see more, follow this link (which was one of the many sources used for my post).

In conclusion, I want to make something clear. Ronald Reagan was an effective president not because he clung to some rigid political dogma like the tea-baggers, but because he understood that different situations require different solutions. Reagan could effectively read America's economic and political barometer better than most, and as a result, he knew when to spend and when to save; when to tax and when to not tax. In short, he knew when to be more conservative and more liberal. Contrary to today's idiotic political division, which insists on complete and total subjugation to one rigid form of government (all of which claims to be the supreme guardian of American patriotism), Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism knew when and how to adjust. It was a living, breathing and evolving idea, not a cold, dead and rigid fiction.

So, to the "Reagan Conservatives" out there I only ask one thing: will you follow the REAL Reagan? Or will you continue to believe the myth? Perhaps Reagan's own words best apply. Instead of the word "liberal" I will use "Reagan Conservative":

The trouble with our Reagan Conservative friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.