The "Legend" of Paul Revere

"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.

The American Revolution: A Blessing for the British?

Is it possible that the American Revolution was just as beneficial -- if not more beneficial during the 19th century -- for Great Britain as is was for us? Surely not! After all, we're the ones who triumphantly and gloriously won independence. The "Mother Country" suffered a huge blow by losing her precious American colonies.

Right?

Not so fast.

In his book "Rise and Fall of the British Empire" historian Lawrence James devotes an entire chapter to this very question. He claims that during the years immediately following the war with the American colonies, Great Britain actually reaped huge rewards; rewards that far exceeded those made by the newly established United States of America -- which, by the way, actually struggled more than it did prosper in its infancy.

For the British, the reality of parting ways with its former American colonies was better than most expected. Yes, the burden of humiliation that came with such a loss was staggering, but it wasn't crippling. Instead of limping away with their tail between their legs, Britain actually experienced more prosperity than ever before. Trade between the former mother nation and its now independent child actually increased after 1783, particularly cotton exports, which augmented from 15.5 million pounds in the 1780’s to 28.6 million pounds in 1800 (James, 119). Along with an increase in trade, the British Empire benefited by not having to pay for the protection of its American colonies, which had proven very costly in the past (The French and Indian War should come to mind). In essence, the American Revolution aided Britain in becoming the economic world juggernaut of the 19th century.

American colonial independence also added a measure of credence to Adam Smith’s assertion that the American colonies were more of a liability than an asset. In his book Wealth of Nations, Smith claimed that colonies were beneficial to empires, so long as control could be maintained. The American colonies, however, had become “less in the view and less in the power of the mother country,” and were therefore a liability. Maintaining control while being separated by an ocean was, in Smith's mind, a dangerous illusion.

The reality of the post-war period was that the American colonists needed the British more than the British needed the colonists. As James points out in his book:

Naturally there were alarms about the commercial consequences of a break between Britain and America,” but those fears subsided as British experts came to the realization that the infant American republic, 'could not survive economically without Britain (119).

The fact that the United States joined in an economic accord with their former rival is also indicative of how powerful the British economy really was. This economic agreement between America and Britain (known as the Jay Treaty) helped to deliver the former colonies from economic ruin (not to mention the fact that it made Britain a lot of money). As historian Joseph Ellis points out in his book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation:

The Jay Treaty, in effect, bet on England instead of France…as being the hegemonic European power of the Future, which proved prophetic (136-137).

We often look at the American Revolution from the perspective of the colonists and rightfully so. When we take a step back, however, and examine the revolution's impact on everyone else involved, we can see just how "revolutionary" it really was. Not only did it benefit the colonies, but it also greatly improved conditions for Great Britain. In a very real sense, the American Revolution also helped the former "Mother Country" become the premiere world power of the 19th century.

At least it didn't hurt!

The Top 5 Movies (so far) of 2010

So maybe it's just me but 2010 feels like an "off year" for movies. There just hasn't been much out there to strike my interest. With that said, there still have been a few movies that have been solid and are worth seeing. Here are my top 5 (thus far) for the year:

#5: Iron Man 2

So I will be the first to admit that I am not a big Iron Man fan but in a year of semi-good movies, I think this one makes the list. It's still worth seeing.

#4: Dinner for Schmucks

Though it's not as good as the previews, "Dinner for Schmucks" is still, in my opinion, the best comedy of the year. Steve Carrel is on his game all the way through. If it wasn't for him, the movie would probably suck.

#3: Toy Story 3

No doubt that this is the best cartoon of the year...and the best Toy Story of the three. Definitely worth your time!

#2: The Book of Eli

I'm a big Denzel fan, and this is one of his best. In a world where people seem to look down more and more on faith and religion, this is a great reminder of the good that religion brings about. Yeah, it's got a lot of violence (which might turn some off) but I still love it.

#1: Inception

There's no doubt here, "Inception" is the best movie of the year. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or has terrible taste in movies. Simply amazing. It gets a 6 out of 5 stars. Rarely if ever do I go to a movie twice in the theaters but I did for this one, and would consider a third trip! Yeah, it's that good.

Cooking with Corazon: Episode XXII

Mango and Raisin
Rice Pudding

What's my favorite dessert you ask? Rice pudding...glorious rice pudding. There's so many fun things you can do with it. Here's one I did tonight:



This was a wonderful surprise! The mango really works well with the sweetness of the rice pudding. Here's the recipe:

Ingredients:
2 cups cooked white rice
3 cups milk (any kind)
1/2 cup sugar
small pinch salt
1/2 cup raisins
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1 mango (pureed)
coconut flakes (for garnish)

Directions:
1.) Combine rice, milk, sugar and salt in a medium saucepan.
2.) Bring to a boil, then lower the heat to a simmer and stir in the vanilla and raisins.
3.) Cook until just about all of the milk is absorbed (25-30 minutes). Stir in cinnamon.
4.) SCARF!

Buen Provecho!

Religion Left to the States?

Or Were the State Constitutions
Hated by the Founding Fathers?

One of the common practices of the "Christian Nation" crowd is to try and argue that America's "Christian founding" is to be found in the verbiage of the various state constitutions (examples can be found here). Of course, they do this because the federal charters (i.e. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) have ZERO references to Christianity of any kind. In fact, they were kept religiously neutral on purpose. On occasion they will try to say that the language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. is somehow, in a roundabout way, related to some obscure biblical or Christian teaching. This argument, however, holds little water and most "Christian Nation" advocates worth their salt don't really bother with them, which leaves them with the state constitutions as the only cannon fodder for their argument.

But it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

And though there are some good arguments to be had with these state constitutions (here's one I particularly like) I maintain that they still don't prove anything of substance. It's not that the state constitutions are irrelevant. Quite the contrary. They are incredibly important to America's founding. However, they do not have any basis in establishing America as a Christian nation.

Now, it is not my intention to dispute the Christian Nationalists in this particular post. Instead, I want to simply site what I see to be a strong counter-argument to the "religion was the domain of the states" thesis. In his book, Unruly Americans, historian Woody Holton's central thesis is that the federal constitution was created primarily out of a disdain for the state constitutions -- which were seen as being "too democratic" and "too misrepresenting" for a legitimate republic to function. Holton writes:

The textbooks and the popular histories give surprisingly short shrift to the Framers' motivations. What almost all of them do say is that harsh experience had exposed the previous government, under the Articles of Confederation, as too weak. What makes this emphasis strange is that the Framers' own statements reveal another, more pressing motive. Early in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison urged his colleagues to tackle "the evils...which prevail within the States individually as well as those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation."

Madison, preoccupation with what he later called "the internal administration of the States" was by no means unique. On the eve of the convention, expressions of concern about the weakness of Congress, numerous as they were, was vastly outnumbered by the complaints against the state governments. "What led to the appointment of this Convention?" Maryland Governor John Francis Mercer asked his colleagues. Was is not "the corruption & mutability of the Legislative Councils of the States?"

Once the Constitution had been sent out to the thirteen states for ratification, its supporters affirmed that some of the most lethal diseases it was designed to cure were to be found within those same states. William Plumer of New Hampshire embraced the new national government out of a conviction that "our rights & property are now the sport of ignorant and unprincipled legislatures." In the last of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton praised the Constitution for placing salutary "restraints" on the "ambition of powerful individuals in single states."

What was wrong with the state assemblies? Given the modern perception that the Founding Fathers had devoted their lives to the principle of government by the people, it is jarring to read their specific grievances. An essay appearing in a Connecticut newspaper in September 1786 complained that the state's representatives paid "too great an attention to popular notions." At least one of those Connecticut assemblymen thoroughly agreed. In May 1787, just as the federal convention assembled, he observed that even the southern states, which under British rule had been aristocratic bastions, had "run into the extremes of democracy" since declaring independence.

Simply put, if Holston's thesis is correct (and I believe he is) it means that state Constitutions became of little consequence, since they were esteemed to be a threat to effective republican government. Having a Christian text or invocation of God would be nothing more than just that...text. Now, I still remain unconvinced that the Founding Fathers' sole purpose for establishing a new Constitution was to eradicate the evils of state power. In addition, the Founders did compromise some power in the federal constitution to the states (not originally but later in the Bill of Rights). So clearly not everyone had such a powerful disdain for state power. But it is clear that the Constitution was created because the delegates felt that the states were too powerful...too free. A strong federal system (which did not sanction Christianity above all else) was seen as essential to preserving the new nation.

Playing in the Water

This week, Elizabeth's parents came by to visit for a few days. And yesterday Grandma, Grandpa and I took Jaxson and Zakary to the movies to play in the water. You heard me right, we took the kids to the movie theater to play in the water:

And here's a video of the Cinemark water fountains:

"Christian Nation" Doctrine that Actually Trumps Democracy

Another Christian Zealot Seeks
to Create an American Theocracy
by Brad Hart

While perusing the Internet, I stumbled upon a website that I am sure some of you are already familiar with. I think it deserves special mention here on this blog because it is a great illustration of how distorted and dangerous the Christian Nationalist agenda can become. The website, entitled, Is America a Christian Nation, is dedicated to the mainstream Christian founding myth -- i.e. America was established by devout orthodox Christians, over the years we have lost our way and forgotten our heritage, but we can and will bring back our Christian roots.

Like most pro-Christian nation websites, this page claims to present concrete evidence that gives 100% proof of America's Christian founding. Right from the start, the website points to the 1892 Supreme Court case, Holy Trinity Church v. The United States, which this website's author believes is ample proof of America's Christian heritage. However, the author neglects to mention the fact that this case had absolutely NOTHING to do with establishing America as a Christian nation. In fact, the case actually dealt with the issue of, "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia." In the course of the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Brewer used the case to promote HIS belief that the United States was established as a Christian nation. As Justice Brewer stated:

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

Legal historians, however, point to the fact that Justice Brewer's "Christian nation" comments occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precedent.

Unfortunately, the author of Is America a Christian Nation does not understand the concept of legal dicta, nor does he/she understand how to put historical data into context. As the author ignorantly points out:

The Court did not merely say that most people in America were Christian, or that there were no Muslims or Hindus in America. According to the author of the Court's unanimous opinion, the Court's claim that America "is a Christian nation" is in "the domain of official action and recognition," not mere "individual acceptance." The Court demonstrates that our entire system of government was created with a duty to acknowledge the authority of the God of the Christian Bible, and to obey His commandments, by Christians who acknowledged the authority of God and were committed to obey His commandments [and] intended the government they created to acknowledge and obey God.

It is also important to point out that Holy Trinity v. United States was actually overruled in 1931 by U.S. v. Macintosh, which stated:

Whereas in Holy Trinity v. U.S., the Court held that because this was a Christian nation, all laws were qualified by a higher law, and no law could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude a Christian minister from entering the United States, the Macintosh Court, fully cognizant of the rule in Holy Trinity, completely reverses the rule, refuses to place the nation "under God," and instead declares that the State-as-god is owed "unqualified allegiance."

For obvious reasons, the author of Is America A Christian Nation neglected to mention much about this little tidbit of history!

Another bizarre source that Is America A Christian Nation sites has to do with the 17th century settlement of America by the Pilgrims. On the web page, the author states:

From its earliest founding in the 1600's, each American colony was a Christian Theocracy. "Theocracy" means "ruled by God," not "ruled by priests." A nation "under God" is a "Theocracy" by definition. There was universal agreement that the formation of civil government was a religious/Christian/Biblical obligation. All governments were Theocratic. Governments were formed because it was believed God in the Bible commanded human beings to form them. The founding of a government was a religious act. Under the new federal government which began under the U.S. Constitution on March 4, 1789, the United States were Christian Theocracies. The U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified if it gave power to the newly-created federal government to prevent the United States from being "under God" and officially and legally acknowledging themselves to be under His jurisdiction.

Not only is this bold proclamation utterly wrong, but it is also a potentially dangerous mode of thinking, as evidenced by the author's following statement:

American liberals HATE the word "theocracy." All you have to do to discredit an idea is accuse it of being connected in some way with "theocracy."

"Theocracy" literally means "ruled by God." It has nothing to do with priests. America was supposed to be a nation "under God." If America is under God, then God is over America. That's the literal meaning of "theocracy."

The mainstream media use "theocracy" as a scare word. They want you to think of Osama bin Laden instead of Jesus Christ. They want you to think of "tyranny under god" rather than Liberty Under God. Many writers who deny America's Christian history attempt to confuse you with caricatures of intolerant right-wing religious tyrants.

So what is so unsettling about the author's claims? Think about it. He/she is actually insinuating that the United States is NOT a democracy, but is instead a Christian Theocracy. Of course the author neglects to mention which Christian God we are under. Is it the God of the Catholics? Protestants? Mormons?

What is most unsettling about this argument is the fact that free speech/will is utterly denied. Under the Theocratic government suggested by this author, God has the final say in all issues. There is no room for individual debate. The Bible becomes the final judge and governing document, not the Constitution.

As a devout Christian myself, I understand the desire that exists for God to be a fundamental part of society. However, as we have learned through thousands of years of world history, a large number of Theocratic governments end up being the most intolerant, brutal, undemocratic and destructive regimes. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.

For a Christian Nationalist to suggest that America is not a Democracy but instead a Theocracy should immediately cause us to raise our red warning flags and sound the alarm.

Miniature Golfing

This past week, our family decided to go miniature golfing! This was the first time our boys had ever gone so we brought along the camera. Take a look:

We had an absolute BLAST! Miniature golfing is great with kids! Here's a short video of the last couple of holes. As you will see, it's mostly organized chaos:

Cooking with Corazon: Episode XXI

Spicy Orange Shrimp
with Rice

Hello again and welcome to yet another installment in my ongoing quest to achieve culinary excellence. Today's episode: spicy orange shrimp. Take a look:



In all honesty, this meal was AMAZING! I can't take full credit, since I "borrowed" the recipe from one of my favorite cooking blogs. Here's the recipe:

Ingredients:
1 tablespoon oil
1 pound shrimp (peeled and deveined)
1 tablespoon garlic (grated)
1 tablespoon ginger (grated)
1 orange (juice and zest)
1 tablespoon soy sauce
1 tablespoon rice vinegar
1 tablespoon brown sugar
1 tablespoon chili sauce (or to taste)
1 handful cilantro (chopped)
a little "shake" of chipotle seasoning.

Directions:
1. Heat the oil in a pan.
2. Add the shrimp and saute until cooked, about 2-3 minutes per side and set aside.
3. Add the garlic and ginger and saute until fragrant, about a minute.
4. Add the orange juice, orange zest, soy sauce, rice wine, brown sugar, chipotle and chili sauce. Deglaze the pan and simmer to reduce to a sauce like consistency.
5. Remove from heat and mix in the shrimp and cilantro.
6. SCARF!!!

Yeah, it was awesome. But I didn't cook it alone. I had the help of a little chef as well:

Step aside, Bobby Flay and Morimoto!

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.