"From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoli"

Happy 235th Birthday to the
United States Marines!!!

On this day in 1775, the United States Marine Corps was born. Members of the Continental Congress, seeing that war with Britain was on the horizon, drafted a resolution calling for the establishment of "two battalions of Marines to be raised." The Continental Congress, gathered at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, ratified the resolution, which officially commissioned the Continental Marines "for the protection of the American colonies and to fight for independence at sea and shore." It was John Adams, the chief supporter of the bill, who pushed for the ratification of this resolution. As a result, it is Adams who should be given special recognition as being the "father" of the Marine Corps.

Here are some interesting tidbits of history on the Marines and their role in the Revolution from the History Channel's website:

Serving on land and at sea, the original U.S. Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations during the Revolutionary War. The first Marine landing on a hostile shore occurred when a force of Marines under Captain Samuel Nicholas captured New Province Island in the Bahamas from the British in March 1776. Nicholas was the first commissioned officer in the Continental Marines and is celebrated as the first Marine commandant. After American independence was achieved in 1783, the Continental Navy was demobilized and its Marines disbanded.

In the next decade, however, increasing conflict at sea with Revolutionary France led the U.S. Congress to establish formally the U.S. Navy in May 1798. Two months later, on July 11, President John Adams signed the bill establishing the U.S. Marine Corps as a permanent military force under the jurisdiction of the Department of Navy. U.S. Marines saw action in the so-called Quasi-War with France and then fought against the Barbary pirates of North Africa during the first years of the 19th century. Since then, Marines have participated in all the wars of the United States and in most cases were the first soldiers to fight. In all, Marines have executed more than 300 landings on foreign shores.

For more information on the birthday of the U.S. Marines click here.

Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" Quote in Context

This past week Americans witnessed the beautiful miracle that is a democratic election. And though many on the left are probably unhappy with the results, all Americans should be proud of the fact that in this nation we can have a safe transfer of power from one person to another without a single shot being fired or a single life being lost. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest blessing of living in America.

Over the past few months, however, we have witnessed a great disturbance in the collective political discourse of this nation. The fires of political partisanship has led to an inferno of overheated, hate-filled demonstrations of pretended patriotism aimed at "securing" America's "true" glory no matter the cost (some have even suggested revolution as a viable option).

In the wake of this public discourse one infamous and stirring quote has made its way back onto the public stage: enter none other than Thomas Jefferson.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson -- who was then living in France -- wrote a letter to his friend William Smith. In the letter Jefferson wrote the following words, which have, from time-to-time, been quoted to affirm the rights of the people to rebel against one's government:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Simple enough, right? Well, not quite. And while Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote has become a favorite of many who oppose the current direction being taken by the Obama Administration, the quote has an important and often forgotten context.

As mentioned before, Jefferson was still living and working in France in 1787. At the time, Jefferson was deeply concerned about some of the proposals for the new United States Constitution -- particularly the role of the executive branch, which he saw as being far too powerful. In addition, Jefferson believed that the recent rebellion in Massachusetts -- which became known as Shays' Rebellion -- had heightened the fears of the American elite, causing them to throw their weight behind a stronger executive government. Shays' Rebellion was essentially an armed rebellion against taxes being levied at Massachusetts farmers. It's leader, Daniel Shays -- who had served as a soldier during the American Revolution -- used the legacy of the American Revolution to garner support for his cause. As a result, scores of patriotic Massachusetts men, most of whom were farmers themselves, resurrected the legacy of the "liberty tree" to fight the perceived injustices of the newly created government. As a result, America's governing class -- and yes, it was a class -- believed that a strong centralized government was the only surefire way to ensure America's future security.

For Jefferson, this was a textbook example of how partisan passions could cloud judgement, creating an atmosphere of panic and fear. As Jefferson states in his letter to William Smith:

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms

Simply put, Jefferson understood Shays' Rebellion to be a common and important component of republican government. Without it, the people could not be effectively represented and the communal "lethargy" would eventually destroy the nation. On the flip side, however, Jefferson also notes that the people are rarely if ever well informed on all issues. It is this communal ignorance -- Jefferson emphasises ignorance and not wickedness -- that Jefferson believed the government must endeavor to remedy. He continues:

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.

The remedy is not suppression or rejection of public discontent, but rather persuasion and public discourse.

So would Jefferson support the current public dialogue? There's a good chance that he would. We can debate whether or not he would like the current rhetoric of the conservatives/liberals but I think it's hard to deny that Jefferson would be pleased to see the outpouring of public interest.

With that said, I doubt Jefferson would support actual blood being shed on the proverbial "Tree of Liberty." After all, enough blood has been lost thanks in part to this often misunderstood quote. It was Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber, who was so very misguided by his poor understanding of Jefferson's words. On the day he chose to murder 168 of his fellow Americans, McVeigh was wearing a shirt that carried Jefferson's infamous words:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

May we ALWAYS remember to be cautious with the history we fail to understand!

Remember, Remember the 5th of November...

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent

To blow up the King and Parli'ment.

Three-score barrels of powder below

To prove old England's overthrow;

By God's providence he was catch'd

With a dark lantern and burning match.

Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring.

Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

Probably few Americans are aware of the significance of November 5th or of Guy Fawkes Night: a celebration to commemorate the failed attempt made by Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. As a devout Catholic, Guy Fawkes hoped that his actions would end the discrimination of Protestant England towards Catholics. From that day forward, the 5th of November was commemorated by British citizens with the burning in effigy of Guy Fawkes, along with a celebration of God's providence in protecting their Protestant King.

In colonial America, Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated as "Pope Day" (or "Pope Night"). Young men from New England would traditionally construct large wagons (with figures of the Pope, the Devil and other Catholic figures, along with unpopular British governing officials all to be burned in effigy), which were drawn throughout the public streets for all to see. The young men would even dress up and petition the affluent of the city for money which was used for getting drunk and having a "splendid supper." As Historian J.L. Bell (of Boston, 1775 fame) points out on his 5th of November website:

In the mid-1700s, the 5th of November was one of Boston’s most popular holidays. On that day, apprentices and young men paraded through town with giant effigies of the Devil, the Pope, and current political scapegoats, demanding coins from householders and passersby.

At nightfall, Boston’s North End and South End gangs met in the middle of town and brawled. The winners hauled away the other side’s paraphernalia and burned all the effigies in a festive bonfire. In 1764 the event became so violent that a young boy was killed, his head crushed by a wagon wheel.

In the decade that followed, the 5th of November processions became closely linked to the town’s protests against Parliamentary taxes. That political conflict led to the American Revolution. Ironically, the Revolutionary War ended up doing away with the 5th of November holiday in America.

In essence, "Pope Day" became yet another example of how Colonial American bred a culture of anti-authoritarianism. Pope Day evolved to become not only a day to mock Catholicism but a day to also express disgust with colonial (particularly British) government.

In addition, it is interesting to note how "Pope Day" gave birth to many of the traditional Halloween customs that are still in practice today. As Mr. Bell points out above (and throughout his website) the tradition of children running though the streets in costume asking for money, treats, etc. was most certainly a common practice on the 5th of November.

With that said, let us not forget the origins behind this anti-Catholic celebration. Guy Fawkes became, for many colonial Americans, the perfect scape goat for all their anti-Catholic rhetoric. The following poem helps to capture at least a portion of that popular anti-Catholicism:

A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A fagot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!

When Did Dirty Campaigning Begin in America?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Samhain...er...Pomona...er...Halloween

In my opinion, one of the coolest aspects of history is to see how ancient customs and traditions from hundreds or even thousands of years ago still manage to weave themselves into our 21st century world. Such is the case with many of our current holidays. Whether it be Saturnalia (Christmas), Imbolc (Groundhog Day) or St. Patrick's Day, it is astonishing to see just how many of these ancient pagan traditions are still with us today, even if their meanings have been lost to time.

Such is the case with Halloween. This holiday, which has become a favorite for children in many parts of the world, has its roots in an era from long ago.

In the highlands of modern day Ireland and many other parts of the British Isles, the Celtic festival of Samhain was celebrated by scores of small towns and villages throughout the land. Samhain (one of the most important Celtic holidays), which was essentially an end of the harvest festival, marked the beginning of winter's reign (called the "dark half" of the year). During this day (the night of October 31 extending into the morning of November 1), Celts believed that the barrier between the living world and the "otherworld" was so thin that the souls of the deceased were able to easily pass between the two.

And while it may seem strange to us in the modern world to hear of mystical barriers between one world and the next being thinned on a singular fall evening, we need to keep in mind that the ancient world of Celts was deeply dependent on the elements. As agricultural societies of the ancient world, Celtic people understood all too well what the winter months meant. Is it any wonder that these people, who saw dying trees, plants, animals and even people with the advent of winter, would see October 31 as a day when the barrier between the living and the dead faded?

During the celebration of Samhain, Celts would invoke the help of their local priests (druids) to pray to the gods for safety from death. These prayers reached a crescendo on Samhain, when the souls of the dead (particularly those who had died in the previous year) could come to the aid of their loved ones.

But not all the souls who crossed into the land of the living were kind. As a result, Celts went to extremes to protect themselves from these unwanted visitors. Bonfires on the outskirts of town were dedicated to the gods as a way to beg for the return of the sun and as a way to keep the evil spirits away. Average people would also dress up in various costumes to ward off the unwanted spirits from their village. In addition, blood sacrifices of animals were regularly made by druid priests, who believed that on Samhain they could better predict the future of the coming year than on any other day.

Samhain wasn't the only festival in the ancient world. In Rome, the celebration of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and gardens, was held on November 1. On this day, divination games (essentially fortune telling games) were a regular part of the Pomona celebration. One of the many games, particularly for men and women who had reached the age of maturity, was to bob for apples, peel the skin, toss the skin over one's shoulder and then analyze it to see which letter of the alphabet it resembled. It was believed that the letter was the first letter of the man/woman that the participant would marry. As the Roman empire continued to expand into northern Europe the ideas of Pomona (the celebration of the harvest) and Samhain (the celebration of the dead) began to fuse with each other. Soon the Roman and Celtic festivals became a united and mainstream celebration that spanned over an entire continent.

But Pomona/Samhain would not overcome every obstacle. With the emergence of Christianity as the preeminent force of the Medieval World, the celebration of Pomona/Samhain would change forever. With its hostility towards all things pagan, the Catholic Church quickly sought for the removal of festivals like Samhain (and Saturnalia). However, church authorities quickly realized that these beliefs and traditions couldn't simply be squashed out. As a result, the church adopted a different tactic. Under the direction of Pope Gregory I, church authorities no longer sought to remove pagan ideas but to Christianize them. Pagan idols were given Christian identities while the pagan devotion to the souls of the dead was converted into a devotion to saints.

Under Pope Leo VI this tactic of pagan "hijacking" was taken even further by the creation of All Saints Day, or All Hallows Day on November 1st. On this day, all of the chosen saints of God were praised by the church, while devout disciples and priests prayed for their assistance to intercede on their behalf with god (does this ring a bell with the ancient Samhain rituals?). As a result, the day before All Hallows Day (October 31st) was known to Christians as "All Hallows Eve", which was eventually shortened to "Hallows Eve'n" and then "Halloween."

But the demonetization of pagan beliefs didn't stop there. In 1486 Pope Innocent VIII made witchcraft (by papal decree) the work of the devil. In consequence, traditional pagan roles for female druids were castigated as being the work of Satan. Needless to say, this spawned a title wave of fear and animosity towards anyone who had the slightest appearance of being a witch. Ridiculous new laws and tests were created to help "identify" witches. Black cats were seen as being the animal embodiment of a witch's soul and were considered bad luck if they crossed one's path. Heck, even the famous Joan of Arc was killed on the grounds that she was a witch!

Halloween wouldn't alway remain in the hands of the Catholics. On October 31, 1517 Marin Luther published his "95 Theses" against the Catholic Church. One of his main grievances, which became a staple of Protestantism, was a rejection of all things linked to popes, priests and saints. As a result, Halloween became a horrific celebration for devout followers of Luther and Protestantism in general. For example, Puritan settlers in America forbade its celebration (along with Christmas) from taking place in the New World. Perhaps this helps to also explain their paralyzing fear of witches, which eventually overcame them and brought about the Salem Witch Trials.

Which brings us to today, where Halloween is seen as a secular holiday for kids. And though this current interpretation is a lot more serene than those of old (no witches have been burned in quite some time) it is still important to remember the origins. After all, they show us just how much we still maintain the legends and symbols of old.

Where Do Jack-o-Lantern's Come From?

Of all the traditional symbols of modern Halloween perhaps nothing captures the spirit of the holiday more than the Jack-o-lantern. For generations of Americans, the jack-o-lantern is to Halloween what the Christmas tree is to Christmas. One would be hard pressed to celebrate the holiday without it.

And though the jack-o-lantern has thoroughly become an American tradition, it is worth noting that its origins are much older...and foreign to our coasts. Long ago in the Irish highlands, scattered groups of local agrarian people, known as the Celts, created jack-o-lanterns during the celebration of Samhain (later converted to All Saints Day or All Hallows Day with the arrival of Christianity) to honor the memory of "Stingy Jack." And who was Stingy Jack? I'm glad you asked.

The Irish legend states that Stingy Jack was a miserable, old drunk who liked to play tricks on everyone. On one particular evening, Stingy Jack was taking part in his favorite pastime (getting drunk) when the devil decided to pay him a visit. Upon seeing the devil, Stingy Jack offered him a chair and poured the devil a tall, cool ale. As the evening passed and the two men enjoyed each other's company, Stingy Jack realized that he didn't have enough money to pay his bill. Realizing his dilemma, the devil offered to change himself into a coin so that jack could pay his bill. All that was required was for Jack to give the devil his soul, which Jack was more than willing to do. After changing into the coin, however, the devil was cleverly outwitted by Stingy Jack, who pocketed the coin (devil) along with a silver cross, which prevented the devil from changing back into his original form. After some time had passed, Jack agreed to release the devil, under the condition that he would not return for a year. With no other option available to him, the devil reluctantly acquiesced to Stingy Jack's demands.

Once the year had passed, the devil sought his revenge. He tracked Stingy Jack to an apple orchard where Jack was forced to climb a tree for safety. As the devil pursued Jack up the apple tree, Jack once again outwitted the king of the underworld by carving a cross into the tree's bark, thus preventing the devil from coming down. This time, Jack made the devil promise to never lay claim to his soul, to which the devil reluctantly agreed.

Shortly thereafter, Stingy Jack downed one too many adult beverages and kicked the bucket. As the legend states, Jack was denied entrance into the pearly gates of heaven, due to the wrenched life he had chosen to live. God then sent Jack's soul to the gates of hell, where the devil was also unable to permit his entrance due to their pact. As a result, the devil sent Jack on his way to roam the world lonely in limbo. Knowing that his world would be dark and isolated, the devil gave Jack an ember from the fires of hell, which he placed into a hollowed out turnip. The burning ember not only became Jack's exclusive source of light, but also served as a warning to the living of his coming. As a result, the Irish people made sure to hollow out hideous figures in turnips and potatoes on every All Hallows Day (Halloween) to ward off Stingy Jack from their homes.

The immigration of thousands of Irish settlers to the United States in the 19th century meant that the traditions of Halloween (and Stingy Jack) were sure to make the journey as well. Upon their arrival, Irish settlers discovered the indigenous pumpkin, which was much larger and easier to carve than turnips. As a result, the "Jack-o-lantern" became synonymous with the American pumpkin.

So as you enjoy tomorrow's festivities, be sure to protect yourself from the wrath of "Stingy Jack" by carving out a pumpkin...or a turnip if you're old school!

Yes, the Founders Established a Separation of Church and State (Sorry Political Pundits)

Over the past few weeks several notable political figures have engaged in the time-honored tradition of "hijacking" history for their own partisan purposes. Of course this is nothing new. Every generation of Americans has attempted to lay claim to certain historical figures in an effort to add legitimacy to their respective claim/agenda. And of all the coveted historical figures, the legacy of America's founding fathers has taken center stage in America's current culture wars. Liberals and conservatives alike have engaged in a virtual tug-o-war over the question, "what would our founding fathers think of x, y, and z?". Now, it's not my intention to engage in a political debate today. With that said, I do want to set a few issues straight; issues that I believe are clear-cut and cannot be doubted (even though many have tried).

Some of you might recall the following comments made by Senatorial Candidate Christine O'Donnell on the topic of separation of church and state:


And then there's the dynamic duo of pseudo history, Glenn Beck and David Barton, whose false history I have exposed on many occasions (click here, here, here and here):


Yes, the desire to twist history (irrefutable history) knows no bounds. Despite that reality, pundits like Rush Limbaugh have defended Ms. O'Donnell by stated that, "The myth of a separation of church and state is so obvious to anyone who reads the Constitution. If you actually read the Constitution you will never find the phrase, 'Separation of church and state.'"

Well, technically Mr. Limbaugh is right. You won't find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution. If we are to take the Constitution LITERALLY then he has a great case. However, what Mr. Limbaugh neglects to realize is that you won't find "separation of powers" either. So does that mean the separation of powers is a myth? In addition, the Constitution does not make mention of the Air Force or the Marines. It only states that the government should, "provide for the common defense" by creating an army and a navy. Anyone for getting rid of our Air Force and Marines? Semper Fi, Mr. Limbaugh! Bottom line: we must look at the ENTIRE picture. The founders were clear on this issue...so clear that they essentially saw it as a no-brainer; an obvious given reality that didn't need to be spelled out in the final draft of the Constitution.

In his book, Common Sense, Glenn Beck stated, "The separation of church and state is more akin to communist Russia than the United States...I challenge any liberal to find just one example of where our founders advocated a separation of church and state."

Well, I'm no liberal but hey, I'm up for the challenge. Here's just a few, Mr. Beck:
-----------------------------------

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
~Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
~Treaty of Tripoli, between the United States and the subjects of Tripoli, 1797. Signed by President John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Senate.

"Our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry...We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."
~Thomas Jefferson, "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia," 1779.

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802.

"It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
~James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785.

"The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
~James Madison, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 1, 1794.

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
~James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
~Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
~James Madison, "Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments."

"If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."
~James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785.

"The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both."
~James Madison, letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
~James Madison, 1803, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches.

"Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
~George Washington, Letter, United Baptist Chamber of Virginia May 1789

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.”
~George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792.

"[N]o one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of...every species of religious persecution."
~George Washington

There are a TON more but I think you get the picture.

Ok, I realize that maybe I'm just a part of some evil communist, fascist, Marxist, socialist, Maoist, Obamaist plot to destoy America by lying about history (like all those fellow comrade professors of the evil American universities) but oh well. Mr. Beck also stated, "Don't read what historians have told you. Read the words of our founders. They are crystal clear."

Touche, Mr. Beck. Very touche!

Cooking with Corazon: Episode XXVII

Baked Salmon w/
Zesty Avocado Sauce

In today's installment in my quest for culinary excellence I decided to make one of my favorite meals: baked salmon. The unique twist in this dish is the sauce. Take a look:

I made a zesty avocado sauce to compliment the salmon. To be honest, it worked really well with the fish. Here's the recipe:

Avocado Sauce:

Ingredients:
- 1 ripe avocado
- 1/3 cup fresh cilantro
- 2 cloves of garlic
- 1 tbsp olive oil
- Juice from 1 1/2 large limes
- Sea salt and fresh pepper to taste

Directions:
1.) It's simple. Blend the ingredients in a food processor or blender.

As for the fish, I chose the following seasonings:

- Sea salt
- Fresh ground pepper
- Chipotle powder
- Paprik
- Coriander
- Cumin
- Garlic powder
- Lemon pepper seasoning

I baked the fish in tin foil at 350 for about 45 minutes. I also included a chopped up red onion (I love red onion) to add some extra flavor. Once the fish is done simply remove from the oven and top with the zesty avocado sauce...then SCARF!!!


Oh, I almost forgot. I also incorporated some garlic parmesan zucchini to the menu. This meal was a joy to both eat and prepare. It's simple and full of flavor...and it had the approval of a six and three-year-old!

Buen provecho!

The Tea Party and the Constitution

Dr. John Fea, historian, author and long-time friend of American Creation (my other blog), has posted an interesting article on the Tea Party movement. The article is written by Joseph Moore, a graduate student in American history at UNC-Greensboro. Mr. Moore writes:

The Constitution was written to constrain movements like the Tea Party. Ironic, then, that Tea Partiers espouse such a religious reverence for it. They collapse evangelical views on the Bible (as written by divinely inspired men and therefore inerrant) into conservative views of the Constitution (same, same). When faced with problems, Glenn Beck proclaimed to a group of kids this summer, "The answer is always 'restore the Constitution.'" In August, a Greensboro crowd carrying weapons met for a "Restore the Constitution" rally. they have turned 'don't tread on me' into 'don't tread on the Constitution.'

The paradox of this crusader's zeal for the Founding Fathers is that the Tea Party more closely resembles the groups that opposed the Constitution than those who wrote it in 1787. The world was different then, but not so different.

Our Constitution was a reaction to a great recession. America couldn't even pay the interest on the national debt taken out to finance the Revolution. Cheap imported goods flooded the market, diving American workers out of a living. These patriotic people, many of them war veterans, had financed their homes with loans. With no one buying American anymore, regular people couldn't pay their mortgages, and banks foreclosed on homes across the nation.

In Massachusetts, a war veteran named Daniel Shays espoused something like the modern sentiment, 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.' Shays and other farmers took up arms, took to the streets, and became the faces of a movement sweeping the country. In the spirit of American patriotism, they demanded that state lawmakers pass legislation protecting hardworking people against bankers and taxes. Thomas Jefferson noted approvingly, "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing."

Thomas Jefferson was in Paris when he said that. George Washington, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were not. Those Founding Fathers called for a new government to stave off groups like Shays'. The document they created, the Constitution, put distance between the people and their government. Politicians, not the people, chose Senators. Not one private citizen voted for George Washington to be president. The original Constitution did not include the rights to free speech, religious choice, bearing arms, due process, or trial by jury. "We the People of the United States" was added in the final day of editing- to save space.

Enter the Anti-Federalists. They were panicked that the new government would enable "the rich to oppress and ruin the poor." This annoyed Washington, who privately remarked that the protesters gave "the tone" of being "obnoxious," and that it was best that citizens should not have opportunity to "peak behind the curtain" of US government.

What frustrated our first President were the Anti-Federalists; emotional appeal and their conspiracy theories about strong central government colluding to take away people's freedoms. "This government, " one opponent prophesied, "will set out a moderate aristocracy."

The Anti-Federalists lost, mostly because in the midst of economic crisis a strong national government made the best sense. Along the way the Anti-Federalists browbeat ten notable concessions called the Bill of Rights out of Washington and 'the establishment.' We woe them our thanks. But that cannot change irrefutable historical facts:

The Constitution was written to protect government from movements like the Tea Party. It was written to ensure the power of the federal government to direct economic policy. It was written to Keep control away from angry men with guns. It was, in short, everything Tea Party advocates like Beck and Michale Savage think it was not.

Ironically, the Tea Partiers have embodied what their most sacred text opposed. This does not delegitimize them.They stand in a meaningful tradition even as they misunderstand it. They have channeled the old angst of Anti-Federalism, good and bad, into the present by combining Jeffersonian fear of government with anger for anger's sake. Their zeal is both tremendous and historic.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the political moderation the Tea Party hates and the Founding Fathers loved is now represented not by politicians, but by comedians. One week before the mid-term elections, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart will hold his "Rally To Restore Sanity" on the National Mall. The restoration of sanity was what the Constitution was originally about.

And though I am not a fan or an apologist of the Tea Party movement, I believe that Mr. Moore's summation is a bit too superficial.

But what say you?

Slave Petitions for Freedom

This morning, just before going to bed (I work the graveyard shift), I was watching a short discussion on one of the many ridiculous political cable channels on the issue of slavery and the Founding Fathers. During the back-and-forth debate, I was stunned to hear one pundit make the comment that, "the Founding Fathers protected slavery because they knew no better." To be honest, I was not really all that surprised by this comment. It seems that many Americans have embraced this delusional interpretation of our founding history as a convenient way to justify the founders' choice to keep an entire race in chains. After all, nobody wants to admit that their respective country has skeletons in the closet.

Anyway, after sleeping on it I decided to dust off my old copy of historian Gary Nash's book, Race and Revolution. I haven't bothered to look over this fantastic work since my undergrad days, so this seemed like the perfect excuse. Besides, Colorado Springs is dark and cold today, which makes for perfect reading conditions. What I love about Nash's book is that it provides several wonderful primary source examples of African American slaves who adopted the ideology of the American Revolution for themselves. They too caught hold of the idea that "all men are created equal" and that they could stake claim to certain "natural rights" guaranteed to them by "Providence." As a result, literally hundreds of slave petitions demanding freedom (sort of small declarations of independence themselves) were sent to the various colonial officials, all demanding immediate emancipation.

And there are literally hundreds of documents from slaveholders, which prove the fact that these colonials had a perfect understanding of the evils of slavery. Thomas Jefferson even stated that, "If there is a just god in heaven we will pay dearly for what has been done to the Negroes."

So, to make the idiotic claim that the colonial generation was somehow ignorant on the issue of slavery and knew no better is both foolish and irresponsible. I understand the need for Americans to cherish their history. I am in total agreement with that, and in no way am I a "founding father-hater." But there is no excuse for those who attempt to obscure the unsavory parts of our history. When we learn the TRUE nature of our history, the more noble it becomes. Our founders were human, not demigods.

I have attached one of the several slave petitions for you all to read (which can be found in Gary Nash's book). It is one of my favorites, because it proves that the slaves were anything but ignorant of the sweeping winds of revolution:

Boston, April 20th, 1773.

Sir, The efforts made by the legislative of this province in their last sessions to free themselves from slavery, gave us, who are in that deplorable state, a high degree of satisfaction. We expect great things from men who have made such a noble stand against the designs of their fellow-men to enslave them. We cannot but wish and hope Sir, that you will have the same grand object, we mean civil and religious liberty, in view in your next session. The divine spirit of freedom, seems to fire every humane breast on this continent, except such as are bribed to assist in executing the execrable plan.

We are very sensible that it would be highly detrimental to our present masters, if we were allowed to demand all that of right belongs to us for past services; this we disclaim. Even the Spaniards, who have not those sublime ideas of freedom that English men have, are conscious that they have no right to all the services of their fellow-men, we mean the Africans, whom they have purchased with their money; therefore they allow them one day in a week to work for themselves, to enable them to earn money to purchase the residue of their time, which they have a right to demand in such portions as they are able to pay for (a due appraizement of their services being first made, which always stands at the purchase money.) We do not pretend to dictate to you Sir, or to the Honorable Assembly, of which you are a member. We acknowledge our obligations to you for what you have already done, but as the people of this province seem to be actuated by the principles of equity and justice, we cannot but expect your house will again take our deplorable case into serious consideration, and give us that ample relief which, as men, we have a natural right to.

But since the wise and righteous governor of the universe, has permitted our fellow men to make us slaves, we bow in submission to him, and determine to behave in such a manner as that we may have reason to expect the divine approbation of, and assistance in, our peaceable and lawful attempts to gain our freedom.

We are willing to submit to such regulations and laws, as may be made relative to us, until we leave the province, which we determine to do as soon as we can, from our joynt labours, procure money to transport ourselves to some part of the Coast of Africa, where we propose a settlement. We are very desirous that you should have instructions relative to us, from your town, therefore we pray you to communicate this letter to them, and ask this favor for us.

In behalf of our fellow slaves in this province, and by order of their Committee.

Peter Bestes,
Sambo Freeman,
Felix Holbrook,
Chester Joie.