The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against the state of Maine and in favor of a Virginia businessman in a legal dispute over ownership claims to a rare copy of the Declaration of Independence.
Richard L. Adams Jr. of Oakton, Virginia purchased the printed copy of America's birth document from a London book dealer in 2002 for $475,000. However, the state of Maine argued that the copy, which was a broadside printed in the Town of Wiscasset, Maine, was an official document belonging to the people of Wiscasset.
The Virginia Supreme Court sided with Adams, awarding him ownership. Maine could appeal to the US Supreme Court, but it appears unlikely they will do so.
You can read The Washington Post story of the case by clicking here.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
C-SPAN Historians Rank Lincoln Over Washington
A survey of historians, sponsored by cable channel C-SPAN, has ranked the Presidents of the United States from George Washington through George W. Bush.
To watch a C-SPAN video on the survey, click here.
To read the Yahoo! news article, click here.
For the second time in a row, the C-SPAN survey has ranked Lincoln above Washington, though Washington did a favorable swap with now-third place finisher Franklin D. Roosevelt.
While Abraham Lincoln was a great leader and strong President, it's a fact that our 16th President committed a few key missteps at the beginning of his presidency. This takes nothing away from the man. No one is perfect, and everyone has to learn. And Lincoln did.
Clearly, Lincoln deserves to be in the Top Five of our Presidents. In fact, I'd rank him at #2. But....Number One?????
Sorry, that prize goes to and must remain with George Washington. Our first President was truly the indispensable man. Without Washington, there would be no United States of America.
Significantly, President Washington had no frame of reference for his conduct as Head of State. Lincoln had fifteen predecessors to look to (for lessons both good and bad) and a fairly well-established Republic to govern. Sure, it split into a Civil War, but there had to be something there to split. In Washington's case, the nation was truly an infant - with no idea where to go or what to do.
Even though Washington may not be first in the minds of historians, he must always remain first in our hearts as Americans.
To watch a C-SPAN video on the survey, click here.
To read the Yahoo! news article, click here.
For the second time in a row, the C-SPAN survey has ranked Lincoln above Washington, though Washington did a favorable swap with now-third place finisher Franklin D. Roosevelt.
While Abraham Lincoln was a great leader and strong President, it's a fact that our 16th President committed a few key missteps at the beginning of his presidency. This takes nothing away from the man. No one is perfect, and everyone has to learn. And Lincoln did.
Clearly, Lincoln deserves to be in the Top Five of our Presidents. In fact, I'd rank him at #2. But....Number One?????
Sorry, that prize goes to and must remain with George Washington. Our first President was truly the indispensable man. Without Washington, there would be no United States of America.
Significantly, President Washington had no frame of reference for his conduct as Head of State. Lincoln had fifteen predecessors to look to (for lessons both good and bad) and a fairly well-established Republic to govern. Sure, it split into a Civil War, but there had to be something there to split. In Washington's case, the nation was truly an infant - with no idea where to go or what to do.
Even though Washington may not be first in the minds of historians, he must always remain first in our hearts as Americans.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
What is the Purpose of Presidents Day?
Want to know the purpose of Presidents' Day? Well, the generally understood purpose of Presidents Day (alternately spelled President's Day, Presidents' Day, or Presidents Day) is to celebrate the American presidency and remember all those who served as President of the United States. This, however, is not the official purpose of the holiday.
The Origin of Presidents Day
In 1885, Congress officially set aside February 22 as a national holiday to honor the birth of America's first President, George Washington. Thus, the holiday we know as "Presidents Day" began as a day to celebrate only one President. And, legally, it is still (at least at the federal level) a day exclusive to George Washington.
In the decades following Lincoln's assassination, there began a movement to honor the 16th President as well. Since Lincoln's birthday (February 12) fell so close to Washington's birthday (February 22 by the modern calendar), it became popular and fashionable to celebrate BOTH birthdays. (Those readers who have birthdays on or close to December 25 understand how this kind of thing happens). Some states began doing this.
In the 1960s, Congress considered officially re-naming Washington's holiday to "Presidents Day" to honor both men. That was shot down, but Congress did pass the Monday Holidays Act, taking Washington's birthday holiday away from the actual birthday and moving it to the third Monday in February.
By the late 1980s, thanks to several states and (most significantly) retail establishments advertising "Presidents Day" sales on TV, the name "Presidents' Day" stuck in popular culture.
Most businesses, calendars, and individuals now say "Presidents Day" rather than "George Washington's Birthday Observed" (even though the latter is the federally designated, official name for the February holiday).
The Legacy of Presidents Day
Though the original intent behind the "Presidents Day" concept was to honor both Lincoln and Washington, the day has lost much of its significance. It now stands as a weak celebration of the American presidency in general and all our Presidents.
And, most people pass by the holiday with little regard for its meaning anyway. They simply see it as a day off work. An extra day to travel, visit family, or shop.
The Monday Holidays Act may be good for the economy, but it's terrible for holiday celebrations. After all, the root concept behind "holiday" is "holy day" - a day to set aside as sacred and worthy of celebration.
Of course, I'm not saying that George Washington was holy. He was a flesh-and-blood human being -- one flawed in many areas. But the original dream (carried out in 1885 by federal law) to honor the Father of our Country with a day set aside for esteem and celebration has long vanished.
And, for that matter, those who wish to honor Abraham Lincoln by hijacking Washington's day have fared little better. Their man has also been lost in the ambiguous, meaningless "Presidents Day."
A Proposed Solution
At this point, the term "Presidents Day" is deeply entrenched in American culture and in popular lexicon. Eradicating it will be impossible, but....
What if we MOVED "Presidents' Day"?
What if Congress designated January 20 of each year as "Presidents' Day" - a day to celebrate the American presidency. And when "Presidents' Day" falls on an actual Inauguration Day, it will be a federal holiday.
Congress should then remove George Washington's birthday from the Monday Holidays Act and celebrate his birthday on his actual birthday. That's the only way to get people to say "Washington's birthday" again.
What about Lincoln?
There are two solutions: the cheap way or the expensive way. The expensive way (expensive in terms of cost to the federal government, but perhaps good for the economy) is to have two holidays in February. Give both Washington and Lincoln their own individual day, but (here's the catch)...
The holiday only counts when it falls on an actual day of the week. If it falls on Saturday or Sunday, you don't get Friday or Monday off. That will save the government some money.
The other way is to let GW have preeminence in February. His birthday is the one celebrated with a holiday, UNLESS it falls on a Saturday or Sunday. In THAT year, Lincoln's day is celebrated as a holiday.
Now, I'm not naive. I realize the chances of my proposal ever seeing the light of day are remote. Neither the White House nor Congress painstakingly follows this blog for policy recommendations :-), so this will probably never come to pass.
But, hopefully, some day, somebody will speak up for the Father of our Country and help right this wrong.
The Origin of Presidents Day
In 1885, Congress officially set aside February 22 as a national holiday to honor the birth of America's first President, George Washington. Thus, the holiday we know as "Presidents Day" began as a day to celebrate only one President. And, legally, it is still (at least at the federal level) a day exclusive to George Washington.
In the decades following Lincoln's assassination, there began a movement to honor the 16th President as well. Since Lincoln's birthday (February 12) fell so close to Washington's birthday (February 22 by the modern calendar), it became popular and fashionable to celebrate BOTH birthdays. (Those readers who have birthdays on or close to December 25 understand how this kind of thing happens). Some states began doing this.
In the 1960s, Congress considered officially re-naming Washington's holiday to "Presidents Day" to honor both men. That was shot down, but Congress did pass the Monday Holidays Act, taking Washington's birthday holiday away from the actual birthday and moving it to the third Monday in February.
By the late 1980s, thanks to several states and (most significantly) retail establishments advertising "Presidents Day" sales on TV, the name "Presidents' Day" stuck in popular culture.
Most businesses, calendars, and individuals now say "Presidents Day" rather than "George Washington's Birthday Observed" (even though the latter is the federally designated, official name for the February holiday).
The Legacy of Presidents Day
Though the original intent behind the "Presidents Day" concept was to honor both Lincoln and Washington, the day has lost much of its significance. It now stands as a weak celebration of the American presidency in general and all our Presidents.
And, most people pass by the holiday with little regard for its meaning anyway. They simply see it as a day off work. An extra day to travel, visit family, or shop.
The Monday Holidays Act may be good for the economy, but it's terrible for holiday celebrations. After all, the root concept behind "holiday" is "holy day" - a day to set aside as sacred and worthy of celebration.
Of course, I'm not saying that George Washington was holy. He was a flesh-and-blood human being -- one flawed in many areas. But the original dream (carried out in 1885 by federal law) to honor the Father of our Country with a day set aside for esteem and celebration has long vanished.
And, for that matter, those who wish to honor Abraham Lincoln by hijacking Washington's day have fared little better. Their man has also been lost in the ambiguous, meaningless "Presidents Day."
A Proposed Solution
At this point, the term "Presidents Day" is deeply entrenched in American culture and in popular lexicon. Eradicating it will be impossible, but....
What if Congress designated January 20 of each year as "Presidents' Day" - a day to celebrate the American presidency. And when "Presidents' Day" falls on an actual Inauguration Day, it will be a federal holiday.
Congress should then remove George Washington's birthday from the Monday Holidays Act and celebrate his birthday on his actual birthday. That's the only way to get people to say "Washington's birthday" again.
There are two solutions: the cheap way or the expensive way. The expensive way (expensive in terms of cost to the federal government, but perhaps good for the economy) is to have two holidays in February. Give both Washington and Lincoln their own individual day, but (here's the catch)...
The holiday only counts when it falls on an actual day of the week. If it falls on Saturday or Sunday, you don't get Friday or Monday off. That will save the government some money.
The other way is to let GW have preeminence in February. His birthday is the one celebrated with a holiday, UNLESS it falls on a Saturday or Sunday. In THAT year, Lincoln's day is celebrated as a holiday.
Now, I'm not naive. I realize the chances of my proposal ever seeing the light of day are remote. Neither the White House nor Congress painstakingly follows this blog for policy recommendations :-), so this will probably never come to pass.
But, hopefully, some day, somebody will speak up for the Father of our Country and help right this wrong.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Total War: Empire Brings the Revolution to Life
There aren't that many Revolutionary War era games. Something that's long frustrated me. Well....that's about to change with Total War: Empire. And, let me tell you...
I can hardly contain myself! I need to warn my wife that I might go into hibernation for a while after I buy this. And, believe me, I WILL buy this - and play it, and play it some more, and some more, and....well...you get the idea. Want to know WHY I'm downright giddy with excitement??? Check out the trailer, and what it says about George Washington and the "Road to Independence"....
...and here's another trailer....
Are you FEELING it yet???? I can't wait!!!
For more info on the game, visit the company's official site here.
I can hardly contain myself! I need to warn my wife that I might go into hibernation for a while after I buy this. And, believe me, I WILL buy this - and play it, and play it some more, and some more, and....well...you get the idea. Want to know WHY I'm downright giddy with excitement??? Check out the trailer, and what it says about George Washington and the "Road to Independence"....
...and here's another trailer....
Are you FEELING it yet???? I can't wait!!!
For more info on the game, visit the company's official site here.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
George Liked Martha For More Than Just Her Money!
Many historians have long claimed that George Washington was primarily attracted to Martha Washington for her property and money, and that the two never really had a close, romantic relationship. This view is fully embraced by a script trapped in "Development Hell" about our first general and first President - one that I personally hope never sees the light of day. But I digress.
Anyway, it turns out that Martha Washington was not the plump, homely widow that Washington married simply for money. Scholars now say that she may very well have been...well...let me just turn it over to Brigid Schulte, writing for The Washington Post...
This just in: Martha Washington was hot. Or at least hotter than we thought.
Our image of the mother of our country, vague and insubstantial as it is, is drawn from portraits painted after her death showing a frumpy, dumpy, plump old lady, a fussy jumble of needlework in her lap, wearing what could pass for a shower cap with pink sponge rollers underneath.
But today, 250 years after Martha and George tied the knot, a handful of historians are seeking to revamp the former first lady’s fusty image, using the few surviving records of things she wrote, asking forensic anthropologists to do a computerized age-regression portrait of her in her mid-20s and, perhaps most importantly, displaying for the first time in decades the avant-garde deep purple silk high heels studded with silver sequins that she wore on her wedding day.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
It would appear that Martha Washington needn't have been that intimidated by neighbor Sally Fairfax.
Anyway, it turns out that Martha Washington was not the plump, homely widow that Washington married simply for money. Scholars now say that she may very well have been...well...let me just turn it over to Brigid Schulte, writing for The Washington Post...
This just in: Martha Washington was hot. Or at least hotter than we thought.
Our image of the mother of our country, vague and insubstantial as it is, is drawn from portraits painted after her death showing a frumpy, dumpy, plump old lady, a fussy jumble of needlework in her lap, wearing what could pass for a shower cap with pink sponge rollers underneath.
But today, 250 years after Martha and George tied the knot, a handful of historians are seeking to revamp the former first lady’s fusty image, using the few surviving records of things she wrote, asking forensic anthropologists to do a computerized age-regression portrait of her in her mid-20s and, perhaps most importantly, displaying for the first time in decades the avant-garde deep purple silk high heels studded with silver sequins that she wore on her wedding day.
To read the rest of the article, click here.
It would appear that Martha Washington needn't have been that intimidated by neighbor Sally Fairfax.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
How to Trace Your Genealogy
Do you know your family tree? How far back have you traced your ancestry? Do you enjoy genealogy research?
Thanks to research done by some of my relatives, I have identified two of my Civil War era great-great grandfathers. My direct paternal, great-great grandfather (my paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather - know what I mean?) was John Tubbs, who fought in the Civil War with a volunteer Pennsylvania unit. He was at the First Battle of Manassas. And my granddad used to tell me stories about he sat on his grandfather's knee to hear stories about the Civil War. That kind of thing makes history incredible for me!
****
Want to know how to trace your family tree, Click Here!
****
Then there's L.E. Jones, another Civil War era great great grandfather, who rode with the 9th Virginia Cavalry, a unit that was reportedly involved in a plan to kidnap Abraham Lincoln. One of my prized possessions is the parole my g-g-grandfather Jones signed, allowing him to return home at the end of the war.
****
Watch this video titled "The Joy of Genealogy"...
****
While I know some information about those two great-great grandfathers, the rest of my family tree is still incomplete. I have, for instance, been able to trace George Tubbs, Sr. (John Tubbs' great grandfather) back to the Revolutionary War era. I don't know what side he fought on, though. :-) Hopefully, the right one - i.e., the American side. (Sorry to my English friends). :-)
Feel free to share some of your genealogy findings in the comments section of this post.
And if you're looking for a resource to help you begin or improve your genealogy research, consider this guide.
Take care and Happy Researching!
Thanks to research done by some of my relatives, I have identified two of my Civil War era great-great grandfathers. My direct paternal, great-great grandfather (my paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather - know what I mean?) was John Tubbs, who fought in the Civil War with a volunteer Pennsylvania unit. He was at the First Battle of Manassas. And my granddad used to tell me stories about he sat on his grandfather's knee to hear stories about the Civil War. That kind of thing makes history incredible for me!
****
Want to know how to trace your family tree, Click Here!
****
Then there's L.E. Jones, another Civil War era great great grandfather, who rode with the 9th Virginia Cavalry, a unit that was reportedly involved in a plan to kidnap Abraham Lincoln. One of my prized possessions is the parole my g-g-grandfather Jones signed, allowing him to return home at the end of the war.
****
Watch this video titled "The Joy of Genealogy"...
****
While I know some information about those two great-great grandfathers, the rest of my family tree is still incomplete. I have, for instance, been able to trace George Tubbs, Sr. (John Tubbs' great grandfather) back to the Revolutionary War era. I don't know what side he fought on, though. :-) Hopefully, the right one - i.e., the American side. (Sorry to my English friends). :-)
Feel free to share some of your genealogy findings in the comments section of this post.
And if you're looking for a resource to help you begin or improve your genealogy research, consider this guide.
Take care and Happy Researching!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Foreigners Who Served in the American Revolution
The American Revolution wasn't all about white male British subjects lifting up arms against the British Crown. In addition to women and African Americans whose contributions were indispensable, many foreigners cast their lot with the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army.
Roger Saunders, the Feature Writer-Columnist for American History at Suite101.com, wrote an excellent article on "Ten Foreign Men Who Played a Part in the American Revolution."
You can read the article by clicking here.
Roger Saunders, the Feature Writer-Columnist for American History at Suite101.com, wrote an excellent article on "Ten Foreign Men Who Played a Part in the American Revolution."
You can read the article by clicking here.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Why the Controversy Over Religion at the Inaugural?
Why the Controversy Over Religion at the Inauguration?
An Interview on "Bob Burney Live," WRFD, 880 AM, Columbus, OH (January 20, 2009)
The controversy over religion at the inauguration continues. That controversy ranges from the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath to whether there should be prayers offered at the inaugural event.
Yesterday, I was interviewed by guest host David Stokes (sitting in for Bob Burney, host of "Bob Burney Live," a Columbus, Ohio based talk show). David Stokes is the pastor of Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia (and, as such, is my former pastor) and is also a radio talk show personality in his own right, serving as primary host for "David Stokes Live." You can read more about him at his website.
This was my very first radio interview, so it wasn't mistake-free on my part. At one point, I tried to say "high, thick wall of separation between God and government" and it came out -- well, it came out a mess. At another point, I asserted that Washington "requested" the Bible to be sworn in on at his inauguration. To be fair, I don't know that to be true. I meant to say that Washington "utilized" the Bible and jumbled it up with "a Bible was requested for Washington's inauguration."
Those errors (and a few jitters) aside, I thought the interview came out well. You can download it by clicking here.
An Interview on "Bob Burney Live," WRFD, 880 AM, Columbus, OH (January 20, 2009)
The controversy over religion at the inauguration continues. That controversy ranges from the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath to whether there should be prayers offered at the inaugural event.
Yesterday, I was interviewed by guest host David Stokes (sitting in for Bob Burney, host of "Bob Burney Live," a Columbus, Ohio based talk show). David Stokes is the pastor of Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia (and, as such, is my former pastor) and is also a radio talk show personality in his own right, serving as primary host for "David Stokes Live." You can read more about him at his website.
This was my very first radio interview, so it wasn't mistake-free on my part. At one point, I tried to say "high, thick wall of separation between God and government" and it came out -- well, it came out a mess. At another point, I asserted that Washington "requested" the Bible to be sworn in on at his inauguration. To be fair, I don't know that to be true. I meant to say that Washington "utilized" the Bible and jumbled it up with "a Bible was requested for Washington's inauguration."
Those errors (and a few jitters) aside, I thought the interview came out well. You can download it by clicking here.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Chief Justice Roberts and the Presidential Oath
You have to feel a little bad for Chief Justice John Roberts. The fumbling of the presidential oath between incoming President Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts lies squarely on the shoulders of the Chief Justice.
Not only is it the Chief Justice's responsibility to lead the new President through the oath, but it's also his responsibility to correctly administer the oath.
And yet Chief Justice Roberts incorrectly prompted the new President. Things got off to an awkward start when the Chief Justice and the incoming President seemed to be talking at the same time, as the Chief Justice asked Obama if he was ready. And things didn't get any better after that.
The presidential oath includes the phrase "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States," but Roberts stuck "faithfully" at the end of the sentence instead. It created an awkward moment for Obama and for the inaugural event itself.
Now, let's show a little grace here. Tens of millions of people were watching and it was the first inauguration for Roberts as Chief Justice. It was an unfortunate error, and it's one he probably feels terrible about.
I know I've made my share of mistakes. So far, though, none of them had tens of millions of people around the world watching. :-)
Saturday, January 17, 2009
So WHAT if GW Didn't Say "So Help Me God"?
In a just a few days, Barack Obama will follow in the foot steps of previous Presidents from George W. Bush to George Washington and take the oath of office to become President of the United States. Will Obama say "so help me God"? There are many who hope he doesn't. And these same people claim that he shouldn't because (so they say) neither did George Washington.What???? George Washington didn't say "so help me God"!?? That's their claim, and many of them are downright obsessed about it.
In addition to my writings here, I am a contributor to the blog American Creation, a group effort at discussing and debating the religious dimension to the origins of the United States.
One of the ongoing debates at American Creation is whether George Washington said "So Help Me God." A few AC contributors have become quite taken with this subject, increasingly believing that George Washington did NOT add "so help me God" at the end of his presidential oath. You can read up on the debate here and here.
And now Peter Henriquez, a George Mason University history professor, has added his two cents to the debate with an article titled "'So Help Me God': A George Washington Myth That Should be Discarded."
***See USA Today article: "No proof Washington Said 'So Help me God' - Will Obama?"***
Now, I'm the first to say that we should be honest in our portrayals of history, but I must admit a great deal of frustration at the agenda-driven nit-picking that's going on here.
Was George Washington a Man of Faith & Prayer?
Let's first understand what's really going on here. There's absolutely no question that George Washington sincerely and unequivocally believed in God and prayer. Any historian that questions this no longer deserves to be called a historian.
What's more, it's obvious to anyone with the slightest shred of objectivity and the barest knowledge of early American history that George Washington repeatedly called on the American people to ALSO believe in God and practice prayer.
One only needs to read Washington's circular letter to the states (after his resignation as General-in-Chief in the American Revolution), his First Inaugural Address, his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, and his Farewell Address to see the man's sincere faith in Providence and prayer.
If Washington had been an atheist or agnostic and religiously-motivated people had crafted a "so help me God" myth to make him into something he wasn't, THEN I would be much more sympathetic to this new revisionist effort. But, this is not the case. What we're dealing with here is the proverbial equivalent of a dispute over whether a lion can run 50 or 55 mph.
So, these claims that Washington didn't say "so help me God" at the first presidential oath are NOT driven by any desire to 'set the record straight' concerning Washington's religious faith.
Did Washington Ask for God's Help?
The next angle these revisionists take is that having "so help me God" as an official part of the presidential oath violates the Constitution -- and saying Washington added the words undercuts the Constitution.
First of all....let's get the history straight here. George Washington not only asked God for help at his inauguration, but he also asked the American people to pray for the nation and turn toward God with obedient hearts! Don't believe me? Read Washington's First Inaugural Address for yourself.
Even if George Washington didn't formally add "so help me God" to the oath, he most certainly expressed that very sentiment in his Inaugural Address...
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
Hmmmmmmmm....sounds kind of like Washington was asking for God's help. At least, that's how it sounded to me. And that's how it would sound to just about anyone, unless the person doesn't WANT Washington to believe in God.
Oh, and did you catch that first sentence and its implication? In case, you didn't, read it again....slowly....
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe..."
Now, what does Washington mean by "first official act"? Is he JUST talking about his Inaugural Address? Or is he perhaps talking about the overall inaugural ceremony? Call it a stretch, but isn't the OATH of office at least PART of an incoming President's first official act?
And this leads me to my last point....
The Cynic's Guide to Oral Tradition
It's true that we have no DIRECT evidence (in terms of sworn eyewitness accounts and such) that George Washington actually said "so help me God" at the end of his oath. We DO have INDIRECT evidence of this -- not the least of which would be decades of generally accepted historical tradition.
Herein lies a concern....we have become so cynical in our review and examination of past events that we sometimes (especially in matters of religion, it would seem) DEMAND - that's right, DEMAND! - absolute, 100%, scientifically-verifiable PROOF of something, before we believe it.
If that's going to be our standard, what happens to history? In fact, what happens to oral history? I'll tell you what happens....it's gone!
Why apply this standard if it's not necessary? And, if you're GOING to apply it, then be consistent -- and apply it to every area and across the board! And watch what happens to the study of history as a result.
The bottom line here is that no one can 100% prove (one way or the other) whether George Washington said "so help me God" at the end of his presidential oath. But we DO know that there is a historical tradition (dating back to the 1800s) that says he did. And....we know that saying "so help me God" was customary in western traditions. And...most importantly...that the phrase characterizes Washington's attitude toward Providence and faith.
This isn't really about whether Washington said "so help me God." This is really about atheists, agnostics, and other like-minded activists bitterly wanting to drive God and any reference to God out of the public square. THAT is what this is about.
Thankfully, President-elect Barack Obama isn't playing ball with that agenda. He has put a stop to some of this foolishness for now, by formally asking the Supreme Court Chief Justice to add "so help me God" to the oath.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Monday, January 05, 2009
How Were Women Treated in Early America?
How were women treated in colonial America? How should the nation today evaluate the legacy of the Founding Fathers, when it comes to women? Can American women take a measure of pride in their nation's heritage?
I tackle these (and other) questions in an article published at Suite101 American History titled: "How Were Women Treated in Early America?" I hope you'll check it out by clicking here.
I tackle these (and other) questions in an article published at Suite101 American History titled: "How Were Women Treated in Early America?" I hope you'll check it out by clicking here.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Originalism v. Activism
Happy New Year to all my readers! I'd like to kick off 2009 on this blog by posting on the issue of constitutional interpretation.
"Originalism" -- "Strict Construction" -- "Original Intent" -- These buzz words stir enormous controversy in political, cultural, and legal circles. The vast majority of law schools teach an interpretative approach more in keeping with judicial activism (though tempered by precedent to varying degrees). Most judges on the bench likewise reflect an activist approach, albeit some are more activist than others. This all begs the question...
How should judges interpret the Constitution or any law for that matter?
The following is a discussion on the issue, featuring two Supreme Court Justices. One is Stephen Breyer, a man rightly regarded as a judicial activist and Antonin Scalia, who champions strict constructionism.
While it's true that the authors of our oldest laws (such as the Constitution) couldn't foresee everything and while there were disagreements even among the original authors, it is very hard to escape Scalia's logic that a judicial branch not grounded in the language and original meaning of the laws it interprets makes the judiciary a policy-making branch of government.
"Originalism" -- "Strict Construction" -- "Original Intent" -- These buzz words stir enormous controversy in political, cultural, and legal circles. The vast majority of law schools teach an interpretative approach more in keeping with judicial activism (though tempered by precedent to varying degrees). Most judges on the bench likewise reflect an activist approach, albeit some are more activist than others. This all begs the question...
How should judges interpret the Constitution or any law for that matter?
The following is a discussion on the issue, featuring two Supreme Court Justices. One is Stephen Breyer, a man rightly regarded as a judicial activist and Antonin Scalia, who champions strict constructionism.
While it's true that the authors of our oldest laws (such as the Constitution) couldn't foresee everything and while there were disagreements even among the original authors, it is very hard to escape Scalia's logic that a judicial branch not grounded in the language and original meaning of the laws it interprets makes the judiciary a policy-making branch of government.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Happy Trenton Day!
In addition to wishing my readers a very Merry Christmas, I also want to join blogger Brad Hart in extending a warm "Happy Trenton Day" greeting as well.
Christmas Night 1776 was perhaps the most important night of the American Revolution. While Saratoga is considered the major "turning point" of the American Revolution, there perhaps would not have been a Saratoga at all, were it not for Trenton.
General Washington literally breathed new life into the Revolution with his victory over the Hessians at Trenton on the morning of December 26, 1776 (after an audacious crossing of the frozen Delaware and bitterly cold march the night of December 25). Without that victory, the American Revolution may well have fizzled in the winter months of 1776-77.
For more on this, read Brad Hart's excellent article: "Don't Forget Trenton!"
Christmas Night 1776 was perhaps the most important night of the American Revolution. While Saratoga is considered the major "turning point" of the American Revolution, there perhaps would not have been a Saratoga at all, were it not for Trenton.
General Washington literally breathed new life into the Revolution with his victory over the Hessians at Trenton on the morning of December 26, 1776 (after an audacious crossing of the frozen Delaware and bitterly cold march the night of December 25). Without that victory, the American Revolution may well have fizzled in the winter months of 1776-77.
For more on this, read Brad Hart's excellent article: "Don't Forget Trenton!"
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Richard Dreyfuss Talks Civics
According to actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss, the American people are losing their ability to think and their interest in careful, thoughtful discourse. Because of that, the window of potential for our nation - for civilization itself perhaps - is closing.
Here is an interview with Richard Dreyfuss from the Mike Huckabee Show. The interview aired a week before the recent presidential election...
And here's a panel discussion with Dreyfuss on the same subject...
Here is an interview with Richard Dreyfuss from the Mike Huckabee Show. The interview aired a week before the recent presidential election...
And here's a panel discussion with Dreyfuss on the same subject...
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Revolutionary War Veterans Not Embraced Like Today
Say what you will about the America's faults, but our nation has learned to appreciate and embrace our veterans. While there's still more we could do, and while our nation still makes mistakes, we generally embrace and appreciate our veterans today. Sadly, this was not the case so much after the Revolutionary War.
Revolutionary War veterans were discharged from their service with little to no tangible guarantee of pay. In fact, during the war, the Continental Army was routinely ill-paid and ill-equipped. Bitterness and unrest over poor conditions led to serious problems, even a few uprisings, in the ranks.
There were many reasons for the young nation's failure to adequately care for its Revolutionary War veterans, but the two leading culprits were:
1. An Economy is Disarray
2. A Weak Central Government
Both of these problems would, in time, be addressed. But they were addressed too late for many war veterans.
For more on the Continental Army and our Revolutionary War veterans, read Veterans: Revolutionary War from Answers.com and check out these Amazon resources...
Revolutionary War veterans were discharged from their service with little to no tangible guarantee of pay. In fact, during the war, the Continental Army was routinely ill-paid and ill-equipped. Bitterness and unrest over poor conditions led to serious problems, even a few uprisings, in the ranks.
There were many reasons for the young nation's failure to adequately care for its Revolutionary War veterans, but the two leading culprits were:
1. An Economy is Disarray
2. A Weak Central Government
Both of these problems would, in time, be addressed. But they were addressed too late for many war veterans.
For more on the Continental Army and our Revolutionary War veterans, read Veterans: Revolutionary War from Answers.com and check out these Amazon resources...
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Myths About the Founding
Was the 3/5ths Compromise crafted by racist slaveowners in an effort to dehumanize African Americans? Was the Constitution inspired by the Iroquois? Many Americans today would answer "yes" to both of these questions, due to the "politically correct" revisionist history we've seen since the mid-20th century.
The facts are far different, as Dinesh D'Souza points out in an excellent op-ed titled "Myths About the Founding." I hope you'll read it.
D'Souza correctly argues that the Founders deserve great credit for "a constitution that enshrined the noble principles of liberty and equality under the law."
Check out D'Souza's article (see link above) and, if you get a chance, pick up a copy of his uncompromising What's So Great About America?
The facts are far different, as Dinesh D'Souza points out in an excellent op-ed titled "Myths About the Founding." I hope you'll read it.
D'Souza correctly argues that the Founders deserve great credit for "a constitution that enshrined the noble principles of liberty and equality under the law."
Check out D'Souza's article (see link above) and, if you get a chance, pick up a copy of his uncompromising What's So Great About America?
Friday, November 07, 2008
History in the Hands of "The Dumbest Generation"
Teenagers and young adults today make up the "Dumbest Generation" in American history, according to author Mark Bauerlein. Bauerlein is the author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30).
Controversial and provocative he may be, but Bauerlein makes some very good (and troubling) points in this interview....
If you're a fan of history like myself, you've got to be troubled by the fact that history's memory is in the hands of this next generation.
**Editor's Disclaimer: As a former high school history teacher, I can say that there are EXCEPTIONS to what Mr. Bauerlein is saying. Some teenagers are very sharp and motivated. But, as a whole, this rising generation represents a crisis for America.
***************
Controversial and provocative he may be, but Bauerlein makes some very good (and troubling) points in this interview....
If you're a fan of history like myself, you've got to be troubled by the fact that history's memory is in the hands of this next generation.
**Editor's Disclaimer: As a former high school history teacher, I can say that there are EXCEPTIONS to what Mr. Bauerlein is saying. Some teenagers are very sharp and motivated. But, as a whole, this rising generation represents a crisis for America.
***************
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Think the 2008 Election was Nasty?
Well, the 2008 presidential election is over. While it seemed longer than most, I'm not sure it was any nastier. Past presidential elections were far nastier, says Heather Whipps, writing for LiveScience.com.
In her article, Whipps points out (correctly) that the 1800 presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams made the McCain-Obama contest look like a Girl Scout cookie sale competition. She writes that the duo "traded slurs that would put today's genteel candidates to shame."
You can read the complete article here.
For my thoughts on Obama's historic victory, click here and here.
In her article, Whipps points out (correctly) that the 1800 presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams made the McCain-Obama contest look like a Girl Scout cookie sale competition. She writes that the duo "traded slurs that would put today's genteel candidates to shame."
You can read the complete article here.
For my thoughts on Obama's historic victory, click here and here.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Columbus Day - Should it Stay or Should it Go???
Perhaps the most controversial holiday on our calendars, Columbus Day was officially created by Congress in 1971 (but celebrated by many states and by presidential proclamations since 1892).
The day honors Christopher Columbus, the man who best publicized the discovery of the New World to the old one, on the date (October 12) that Columbus' crew first sighted land.
The legacy of Columbus is a hotly debated subject. Over at American Creation (a very comprehensive group blog on the American founding), Brad Hart poses the question: "Should We Celebrate Columbus Day?"
"Yes!" says David Sprecace, writing last year in a Denver Post op-ed titled "Columbus Should be Celebrated." Sprecace argues that "Columbus possessed admirable qualities, of which all Americans can be proud." He explains:
Even by his detractors, he is seen as a skilled sea captain of the highest order. He challenged the conventional thought that the Earth was flat, seeking to "reach the east by going west," an idea to which the scientists of the day were forcibly opposed. He challenged the Aristotelian philosophy of science that had guided scientists for centuries in favor of the newer philosophy of science that placed observation in a primary role of analysis. He supported the heliocentric concept of the solar system with Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler before it became known by that name. In capitalistic spirit (admirable in the eyes of most Americans), he sought glory, wealth and a title of nobility by opening new trade routes to China and Japan.
Sprecace sidesteps Columbus' atrocities, saying that the Italian explorer (who actually sailed for Spain) has become a "scapegoat for perceived European sins."
These "perceived European sins," however are a wee-bit more than perceptions, and were regarded as rather serious by some of Columbus' own contemporaries.
The Court of Spain appointed Francisco de Bobadilla to review and oversee the situation in the Indies. From 1500 through 1502, Bobadilla conducted a rather thorough investigation of Columbus' work as viceroy and governor, and his report resulted in Columbus being returned to Spain in chains and briefly imprisoned. Though Columbus would have his freedom restored, he was forever stripped of his authority. His reputation, during his lifetime, would never recover.
But, in the centuries following his death, his reputation was revived, with the focus being on his courage and achievements as an explorer - his brutality largely forgotten. Until recently.
In the last couple of decades, a renewed spotlight on Columbus' record has called the appropriateness of "Columbus Day" into question.
In the opinion of THIS author, the full record of Christopher Columbus should be acknowledged. And while the discovery of the New World is, in my opinion, worthy of a national holiday, the brutality practiced by Columbus while governor in the Indies, is most certainly NOT.
The day honors Christopher Columbus, the man who best publicized the discovery of the New World to the old one, on the date (October 12) that Columbus' crew first sighted land.
The legacy of Columbus is a hotly debated subject. Over at American Creation (a very comprehensive group blog on the American founding), Brad Hart poses the question: "Should We Celebrate Columbus Day?"
"Yes!" says David Sprecace, writing last year in a Denver Post op-ed titled "Columbus Should be Celebrated." Sprecace argues that "Columbus possessed admirable qualities, of which all Americans can be proud." He explains:
Even by his detractors, he is seen as a skilled sea captain of the highest order. He challenged the conventional thought that the Earth was flat, seeking to "reach the east by going west," an idea to which the scientists of the day were forcibly opposed. He challenged the Aristotelian philosophy of science that had guided scientists for centuries in favor of the newer philosophy of science that placed observation in a primary role of analysis. He supported the heliocentric concept of the solar system with Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler before it became known by that name. In capitalistic spirit (admirable in the eyes of most Americans), he sought glory, wealth and a title of nobility by opening new trade routes to China and Japan.
Sprecace sidesteps Columbus' atrocities, saying that the Italian explorer (who actually sailed for Spain) has become a "scapegoat for perceived European sins."
These "perceived European sins," however are a wee-bit more than perceptions, and were regarded as rather serious by some of Columbus' own contemporaries.
The Court of Spain appointed Francisco de Bobadilla to review and oversee the situation in the Indies. From 1500 through 1502, Bobadilla conducted a rather thorough investigation of Columbus' work as viceroy and governor, and his report resulted in Columbus being returned to Spain in chains and briefly imprisoned. Though Columbus would have his freedom restored, he was forever stripped of his authority. His reputation, during his lifetime, would never recover.
But, in the centuries following his death, his reputation was revived, with the focus being on his courage and achievements as an explorer - his brutality largely forgotten. Until recently.
In the last couple of decades, a renewed spotlight on Columbus' record has called the appropriateness of "Columbus Day" into question.
In the opinion of THIS author, the full record of Christopher Columbus should be acknowledged. And while the discovery of the New World is, in my opinion, worthy of a national holiday, the brutality practiced by Columbus while governor in the Indies, is most certainly NOT.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Subscribe Here!
Posts
All Comments