Great Novels of the American Revolution

In general, I prefer reading nonfiction to fiction, but there are times I like to kick back with a good novel, especially great novels on American history! And since the American Revolution is my favorite period of history, here are some novels I have thoroughly enjoyed. I recommend the following novels without reservation...

1. Rise to Rebellion by Jeff Shaara

Jeff Shaara's father, Michael Shaara, is the Pulitzer winning author of the classic The Killer Angels, a Civil War novel set around the Battle of Gettysburg. Like his father, Jeff Shaara takes actual historical events as well as the writings (letters, diaries, etc.) of the key figures -- and builds a novel around them.

Jeff Shaara has written several such novels, including two on the American Revolution. Rise to Rebellion is the first in the two-part series, and the main heroes of the book are John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Highly enjoyable.

2. The Glorious Cause by Jeff Shaara

Shaara completes his two-part saga of the American Revolution with The Glorious Cause. In the first part, the main protagonists were Adams and Franklin. In this second part, Shaara shifts the spotlight to none other than George Washington. An excellent book! Highly recommended.

3. To Try Men's Souls: A Novel of George Washington and the Fight for American Freedom by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen

Even if you're a diehard liberal, you have to give Newt Gingrich credit for being an interesting figure, a credible historian, and an effective writer. Gingrich takes his love of history and his giftedness as a writer and teams up with bestselling novelist William Forstchen to write this novel set during the tumultuous and critical events of December 1776.

This is actually not the first Gingrich-Forstchen project. They wrote three awesome alternative history novels set around the Battle of Gettysburg. (The Civil War is outside the purview of this particular blog, but if you like "what-if" questions of history, you've GOT to read their Civil War novels! Start with Gettysburg, where the authors postulate a successful and daring end-run around the Army of the Potomac by General James Longstreet, resulting in General Meade's decisive defeat. What IF the South had won at Gettysburg? You've GOT to read it, if you haven't!). Gingrich and Forstchen have also written alternative history novels set around World War II.

To Try Men's Souls is NOT alternative history. In terms of the events portrayed, it's as accurate as they come. And it's a captivating novelization of a true story.

So if you like great novels on American history, then consider the above three. They are definitely well worth your time. You can follow the links to get them at Amazon or (better yet) check them out of your local library.

Happy Reading!

My Top Five Founding Father Biographies

I love reading biographies. As a fan of the American founding era, I've found the following biographies of Founding Fathers to be particularly excellent. I'm not suggesting that these are the very best biographies written, nor am I saying that they are the most scholarly. But they are a great balance between solid scholarship and excellent readability. They are highly recommended.

1. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin by the man himself

There's nothing like reading primary source documents. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin remains an all-time great classic of American literary history.

2. John Adams by David McCullough

This Pulitzer Prize winner is one of the most comprehensive and absorbing biographies I've ever read. McCullough is unfairly looked down upon, because he lacks "proper" historian credentials. More evidence of the academic elitism that sadly permeates much of our culture. McCullough is a consummate researcher and a stickler for detail. His scholarship is solid. And he knows how to tap into the human element and tell a good (and accurate) story. I highly recommend McCullough and all his books, especially John Adams.

3. The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands

Benjamin Franklin is one of the fascinating characters in world history, and certainly one of our most interesting Founding Fathers. H.W. Brands paints a vivid portrait of Franklin's life. I had a hard time putting this one down. Definitely worth your time.

4. Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington by Richard Brookhiser

This is, by no means, a comprehensive biography of Washington. For that, check out Joseph Ellis' His Excellency (which I recommend with some qualifications) or James Thomas Flexner or Douglas Southall Freeman. However, Brookhiser does a superb job examining Washington's legacy in American popular memory. Very insightful and very interesting.

5. Alexander Hamilton, A Life by Willard Sterne Randall

I confess that I have not yet read Ron Chernow's very popular biography on Hamilton. If I had, I may recommend it, instead of Randall's. But, of the biographies on Hamilton which I've read, Randall's Alexander Hamilton is the superior one. I was swept up in the story of Hamiton's life. He is truly the rags-to-riches story of the American founding. In many ways, Hamilton epitomizes what it means to be an American more than any other Founding Father. Honorable mention goes to Richard Brookhiser's Alexander Hamilton, American.

Also Recommended...

While not a biography per se, I would also highly recommend Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. The book does a great job showing how the colorful characters of our founding era interacted to produce not only some of the most interesting dramatic episdoes in our history, but also the most successful nation the world has ever known.

Have You Been to the Disney Hall of Presidents Lately?

Walt Disney World's "Hall of Presidents" is one of the longest-running attractions in the Magic Kingdom. First opened in 1971, the Hall of Presidents is a multi-media attraction that honors all those (so far) men who have served as President of the United States. Since the early 1990s, though, the Hall of Presidents has undergone some significant changes. In the opinion of this blogger, not all those changes have been good.

My family and I just got back from vacationing at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. We of course enjoyed ourselves, though it rained much of our time there. (That was kind of a bummer). Still, does anyone actually have a bad time at Disney World? :-)

Though this was my fifth trip to Disney World, it was the first time I saw the redesigned Hall of Presidents. My first time to Disney World was in the late 1970s. I was a first grader and was absolutely blown away by the whole experience. Then, in the late 1980s, my parents took me back while I was in high school. I was older and able to take it in much more. And I had an absolute blast.

Yet the Hall of Presidents stood out as one of the most inspirational and moving experiences I had ever witnessed. Even as a first grader, I remember enjoying it. As an eleventh grader, though, I absolutely loved it and soaked it up. That and Epcot's "American Adventure." This was at a time, when I saw myself going into politics, so it made it all the more exciting.

My wife and I took our first trip together to Disney World (my third trip overall) sometime in 1993, and I once again soaked up the Hall of Presidents. Then, that same year (sometime after our visit) Disney changed the attraction. It would be the first of several.

In 1993, Columbia University professor Eric Foner helped revise the attraction to make it less iconic. His changes, supported by then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner, moved the Hall of Presidents away from Walt Disney's original vision. The most noticeable change was perhaps the diminished focus on Abraham Lincoln, Disney's hero.

The Hall of Presidents has gone through several more updates and changes since 1993, including a speech from the current President (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have all spoken - depending on who was President at the time). George Washington now speaks, which is, in some respects, a welcome change. Yet, all these changes have made the Hall of Presidents less than what it once was.

Let me give you an example. In the classic version, the finale had George Washington seated in the center of all the Presidents. He stood during the roll call, surveyed all the Presidents as if he were the leading statesman. When the narrator had finished the roll call, Washington nodded to a seated Abraham Lincoln and then took his seat (as if he, Washington, were the presiding officer, yielding the floor). Lincoln then stood and gave a very moving and patriotic speech, adapted from his famous Young Men Lyceum's address, in which he said "If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher." It was a great send-off, reminding Americans of their sacred duty to carry on the torch. That's all gone now.

Sure, Washington speaks. But, frankly, having him speak almost makes him less statesmanlike.

No longer is Lincoln's wise and patriotic statesmanship the final send-off. Instead, we're given a generic, feel-good, rah-rah speech from the current President. That's all well and good, but it just isn't the same. Clinton, Bush, and Obama are not Lincoln.

Since 1993, the changes to the Hall of Presidents have frankly diminished it. Gone is that feeling of "wonder" evoked in the original version. Now, it comes off more or less as a multi-media patchwork, trying to cut a balance between highlights from a history book on the one hand and political correctness on the other. This isn't to suggest that the Hall of Presidents has drifted into Howard Zinn territory. (Thankfully, it's still pro-American). Nor is it to say that it's a bad experience. I still like it, but not as much as I once did.

The new Hall of Presidents is like what New Coke is to the Classic Coke. The new Hall of Presidents simply doesn't reflect Walt Disney's classic, patriotic vision like it once did. And I don't think that's a good thing.

If anyone at Disney is reading this, consider this a vote to bring back the classic version.

Revolutionary War Diorama Ideas

Diorama projects are a lot of fun. Diorama projects can also be tedious and overwhelming, especially for the first timer. My first diorama project was such a project. I had decided on a Civil War diorama focused on the Battle of Gettysburg. I got a B. Well, actually, my dad got a B. :-) He did most of the work!

Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at a diorama set in the American Revolution. If this is for a school project, make sure you read your assignment carefully and check with your teacher on any questions before proceeding. If you're doing this as an adult just for fun, well, then, you don't have to worry about any of that.

**Beginners may want to read How To Build Dioramas**

Whether you're a student with a diorama project or just a history buff who enjoys modeling and making scenery, here are three ideas for your next diorama project:

1) Washington Crossing the Delaware -- You've seen the painting. Why don't you make a diorama of it? You'll need a diorama water kit, a boat, some Continental Army soldiers rowing, and - of course - George Washington! Depending on how detailed or "professional" you want this to be, you may have to work hard to find soldiers in the right pose for this to work.

2) British Artillery - This idea may not be very innovative, but there's a British artillery set available from Amazon. Grab the artillery set and a basic diorama land kit, some paint, and you're ready to go.

3) Continental Artillery - Once again, Amazon has the set ready to go. Just grab it, a land diorama kit, some paint, and you're on your way.

If these ideas don't grab you, grab a pictorial book on the American Revolution to help trigger some more possibilities. You can also Google "Revolutionary War diorama" and even check YouTube for other possible ideas.

**See what one elementary class did with Revolutionary War dioramas - Click Here!**

Whatever you decide, have fun!

Oh...and why don't you post a picture of your project online and then let us know in the comments section where to find the pic. We'd love to see it.

Good Luck!

Fort Ticonderoga Musket Demonstration

I occasionally like to post videos from YouTube, especially those of reenactors demonstrating musketry, cannon fire, the daily life of a Revolutionary War soldier, etc. Here's one of a musket demonstration at Fort Ticonderoga...

Guns and Bows and Arrows: What if the Continental Army Had Taken Ben Franklin's Suggestion?

In February 1776, Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to General Charles Lee, expressing his wish that "pikes could be introduced" along with "bows and arrows," which, Franklin added, "were good weapons, not wisely laid aside." What if the Continental Congress and the American army had taken up Franklin's suggestion?

Franklin's reasons for recommending the longbow over the musket are difficult to refute in an eighteenth century context. Those reasons were essentially the following:

*The bow was often more accurate.
*A man could shoot four arrows in the time it takes to fire and reload a musket.
*No gunsmoke, thus no problems in field vision.
*An incoming flight of arrows is rather disconcerting to the enemy.
*An arrow stuck to a man essentially immobilizes him, until extracted.
*Bows and arrows are more easily provided than muskets and ammunition.

Given the Continental Army's supply problems, one wonders why Franklin's suggestion wasn't more readily entertained.

Perhaps some of my readers have come across some information on this subject, but, based on my reading of the history, I would say the reasons Franklin's suggestion was never given serious thought are:

1) Image: Using bows and arrows was considered primitive. Having an army with uniforms, muskets, bayonets, professional training, etc. was a mark of civilization and progress. To regress back to the 1500s or to adopt tactics used by Native Americans was probably not a direction that the Continental Congress was even willing to contemplate. A more serious dimension to this was the fact that the Americans may have feared that such a direction would result in their being taken less seriously by France, Spain, and the Netherlands. They wanted these European powers to see them as a respectable nation ready to take its place in the family of nations.

2) Chivalry: The advent of gunpowder had a lot to do with the decline of armour on the battlefield. While armour provides some protection against arrows, it provided virtually none against musket balls! By the time of the American Revolution, European style warfare had evolved to armies in bright uniforms maneuvering on the open field and firing musket volleys at one another, with some artillery and cavalry thrown in for variety and good measure. To reintroduce bows and arrows would have been deemed (in all likelihood) as "ungentlemanly," much like the British viewed colonists shooting at them from behind rocks and trees.

Perhaps some of my readers could add to those reasons, but I think that (consciously or unconsciously) the above two were probably among them.

Still, one wonders if the American Revolution woud've turned out differently or perhaps ended sooner had Franklin's suggestion to Charles Lee been accepted by General Washington and the Continental Congress.

Facts About George Washington's Inauguration

On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as the President of the United States of America, the first person to serve in that capacity under the newly ratified Constitution of the United States.

Here are some facts about George Washington's inauguration:

*George Washington was not the first person to bear the title "president of the United States." That distinction goes to John Hanson, the first American president under the Articles of Confederation. The men who served as president under the Articles did not carry executive authority. Theirs was a very weak presidency. Washington was the first person sworn in as President under the new (and still current) Constitution of the United States.

*George Washington was inaugurated in New York City (the only President to be inaugurated in that city). The nation's capital would soon move to Philadelphia and then, during the administration of John Adams, to the newly constructed city of Washington.

*Since there were no Supreme Court Justices as of yet, Robert Livingstone (New York's highest ranking judge) administered the oath.

*Washington took the oath of office on a Bible, starting a tradition followed by virtually all Presidents since.

*Washington wore a sword to his inauguration, a tradition that did not have as much staying power.

*Though it is a matter of some dispute, historical tradition holds that Washington said the words "so help me God" after reciting the constitutional oath of office. While some researchers challenge this tradition, Washington's First Inaugural was very religious. In his speech, he most pointedly asked for God's help. Accordingly, most Presidents (certainly since the mid-1800s) have appended the words "so help me God" to the presidential oath - a tradition that probably (though we can't say for certain) goes back to Washington.

*Washington's second inauguration (1793) had much less fanfare, probably reflecting his lack of enthusiasm for accepting a second term. His Second Inaugural Address is a mere 135 words, the shorest in history!

When Did The American Revolution Start?

The opening shots of the American Revolution were fired in the center of Lexington, Massachusetts on the morning of April 19, 1775. One British soldier was wounded, while eight men of Lexington fell dead. This tragic exchange of gunfire would trigger the American Revolution, a war that would last for eight long years and would result in the birth of the United States of America.

The colonists who gathered on Lexington Green that day weren't planning to start a war. On the contrary, the British were on their way to Concord -- not Lexington! But the militia of Lexington turned out on the Green, so that the British army would see them as they marched by. It was intended as a show of force, a demonstration of colonial resolve.

The British were headed to Concord to secure arms and munitions reportedly being stockpiled. Lexington was on the way. Captain John Parker turned out his Lexington Company of the Middlesex County Brigade of the Massachusetts Militia to stand in the center of Lexington as the British would (he thought) pass by. Parker's men ranged in age from 18 to 63 and his unit numbered just under 80 men, most of whom were farmers.

The British were not in the mood for such a display. Seeing the colonials turned out, their 700-man force turned off the road to Concord and marched into Lexington.

Seeing the British approach, Parker proclaimed to his men: "Stand your ground! Don't fire unless fired upon. But, if they want to have a war, let it begin here."

The commander of the British advance guard ordered the militiamen to lay down their arms. Seeing that he was overwhelmingly outnumbered, Parker gave the order to disperse. As the colonial militia began to back away, a shot rang out. It remains a mystery to this day as to who fired that shot!

Eight Americans were killed. Nine were wounded. The British suffered one minor casualty and resumed their march to Concord. The grieving citizens of Lexington would never be the same, and neither would New England - or, for that matter, all of North America.

Whoever fired the shot, though, triggered more than a local skirmish. He started what became a global war!

Picture by Don Troiani at HistoricalArtPrints.com.

Recommended Reading

"Causes of the American Revolution" (an article by yours truly over at Suite101.com)

Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fisher

Do You Owe The Library Any Late Fees?

I don't know about you, but I love to read books. I'm frequently seen at our local Borders and at our local library. In fact, I'm known to walk out of our local library with a huge stack of books, ready to explode out of my grip and all over the floor!

And...yes...I've helped the local government by paying my fair share of late fees over the years. Fortunately, my home county of Loudoun doesn't charge late fees. They just freeze your card. :-(

But the neighboring county of Fairfax DOES charge late fees, and come to think of it, I still owe them about ten bucks. :-(

Well, ten bucks is nothing compared to what George Washington apparently owes the New York City Library. According to The Associated Press, George Washington, if alive today, "might face a hefty overdue library fine."

For more on this story, read "George Washington Racks Up Late Fees at NYC Library."

So, the next time you owe late fees, reflect on the fact that you're in good company. :-)

Washington's Tomb Points to Promise of Easter

Thinking of Easter, I couldn't help but reflect on the tomb of George and Martha Washington. The Washington Tomb, which became the resting place for the remains of George and Martha Washington in 1831, carries an overt Christian declaration.

To read my latest post over at American Creation that deals with the Washington tomb, click on the following link...

"Washington's Very Christian Tomb"

For more on whether George Washington was a Deist, Unitarian, skeptic, or Christian, check out...

"Was George Washington a Deist?" - an article at Suite101 Protestantism

Washington's God by Michael Novak and Jana Novak

George Washington's Sacred Fire by Peter Lillback

The Quartering Act Moves America Toward Revolution

On this day (March 24), the British Parliament approved one of the most controversial and provocative measures in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The Quartering Act of 1765 required the colonies to provide barracks or suitable alternative arrangements for British soldiers stationed in North America.

Those alternative arrangements were, if necessary, to include "inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and the houses of sellers of wine." If all such "publick houses" were filled, colonial authorities were then obligated to "take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty's forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary."

Opponents of the Quartering Act of 1765 saw such a large presence of British soldiers as not only unnecessary (the late French and Indian War having been concluded), but dangerous to colonial liberties. They also objected to Parliament making such demands from thousands of miles away. Colonists treasured their hitherto unchallenged tradition of self-government.

Agitators called up images of British redcoats tossing families out of their homes, taking liberties with colonial women, and engaging in other forms of bullish behavior.

Along with Parliament's tax legislation, such as the Sugar Act and Stamp Act, this forced presence of British troops in colonial North America only served to increase tensions with the Mother Country. Street brawls became fairly common, until finally things came to a fatal head in the streets of Boston in 1770. And the American Revolution was, from that day forward, almost inevitable.

Washington Saves America at Newburgh

On March 15, 1783, General George Washington made an impassioned and ultimately successful appeal at Newburgh, New York for his Continental Army officers to not lead a coup against the civilian U.S. government.

The Road to Newburgh

Tensions between the Continental Army and the U.S. government over back pay and poor supplies had existed throughout the American Revolution. They became volcanic in the latter part of the war, nearly causing an eruption several times. Following the British surrender at Yorktown, the patience of the Continental Army wore extremely thin.

As negotiations dragged on between American diplomats and their British counterparts over how to resolve remaining differences and establish formal recognition of the United States, Washington kept his army in the field. Yet, in doing so, Washington kept officers and troops in the field who had not been paid for years. With the war winding down (and, in fact, all but over), many Continental officers and soldiers believed (with good reason) that they would NEVER receive what had been promised them.

It was in this context that George Washington was asked to declare martial law and install himself as dictator. He flatly refused. But a conspiracy to use the army to pressure the civilian government and force the states into a strong federal union continued to build. Many of the conspirators were determined to move ahead, with or without Washington's support.

Washington at Newburgh

To get ahead of events, Washington called for a special March 15 meeting of his officers, with Horatio Gates presiding. Washington indicated he would not attend. But...he did. When he arrived unexpectedly, the facial expressions of his officers and the tension in the room let it be known that he was not welcome.

Washington gave an impassioned speech to the assembly, urging patience and restraint. And he read a letter from a congressman to support his case. While reading the letter, he fumbled with the words and then fished out a pair of spectacles. Most of those in the room were unaware of the General's declining eyesight. Washington, a fan of the theater, played the awkwardness to the hilt! Explaining his use of glasses, Washington said simply: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

When he had finished reading, he looked up, saw most of the room in tears. Knowing when to exit, Washington quickly concluded his remarks and left the room. And the conspiracy collapsed!

In that moment, General George Washington saved the legacy of the American Revolution, confirmed civilian oversight of the military, and put the United States on the course to being the most successful republic in world history.

Related Reading

For more on this subject, check out...

"The Rise and Fall of the Newburgh Conspiracy" by George Marshall, Jr.

George Washington's War: The Forging of a Revolutionary Leader and the American Presidency by Bruce Chadwick

Grover Helps Out George Washington

Here is a look at the American Revolution -- Sesame Street style. :-)

How Important is a Resume?

When you read an article or book on history or listen to a speech, how important is a resume? How important is it that the person have a certain degree or set of degrees from a certain school? Does it matter how many previous books she has written or how many awards he has received? What role do (or should) "credentials" play in whether a person is worthy of our respect and esteem?

I explored these questions in an article I just wrote for American Creation on the subject of academic elitism. Let me know what you think.

Did President Washington Lie in Office?

According to a CNN/Opinion poll released today, 3 out of 4 Americans believe Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both lied to the American people while serving in office.

The poll results highlight Americans' deep cynicism, especially when it comes to politics and Presidents. But is it fair to apply this cynicism to George Washington, the man Parson Weems idealized in the cherry tree legend as the boy who couldn't "tell a lie"? So much for that, I guess. And so much for "Honest Abe." Most Americans will have none of that. Nope, for them, our first President and our sixteenth President lied through their teeth, while serving in office!

Rather distressing, to say the least, given Washington's strong desire to maintain a reputation of integrity. "I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man," the first President once said.

While it's reasonable to conclude that most people (dare I say "all" people) will lie at some point in their lives, I find it somewhat troubling that we so easily believe the worst in people, especially individuals who did so much for America.

This kind of poll reminds me of the surveys during the Bill Clinton sex scandals. You remember those? The polls that said "all Presidents cheated on their wives." Yeah, that's right. There were surveys showing that large portions of the American public actually believed that most, if not all, of our Presidents committed adultery!

The fact of the matter is that all Presidents are not alike. Some Presidents are more decent and honorable than others. Some Presidents are more honest than others. And some Presidents are more admirable and noble than others. George Washington would be such a President -- a man worthy of our respect and esteem. A man who deserves better than this CNN poll.

Put Washington's Birthday Back Where it Belongs!

Forty years ago, you rarely heard the name "Presidents' Day." Now, of course, we read drivel like the following over at the website eHow: "Presidents' Day is more than just a day off from work. It's a holiday that gives us a chance to think about the lesson we an learn from the lives of those who have attained the highest office in the United States" ("How to Understand the Meaning of Presidents' Day," eHow).

Excuse me while I try to settle my stomach down. It wouldn't be so bad, were it not for the fact that so many people believe this garbage. Because, as the eHow article demonstrates, the United States of America has pretty much lost ALL understanding of what the February holiday is SUPPOSED to be about.

The travesty began in 1968, when Congress passed the Monday Holidays Act. Prior to that piece of legislation, there were nine federal holidays celebrated on specific dates. Each year, they would fall on different days of the week. That was too confusing and not worker-friendly enough for congressional tastes, so they decided to "improve" the situation.

With the Monday Holidays Act, Congress shifted four holidays (George Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Columbus Day, and Veterans' Day) to designated Mondays in their respective months. Veterans' groups cried foul (justifiably so), and got Veterans' Day moved back to November 11, recognizing its origins as a day inspired by the armistice which ended World War I.

Once Washington's Birthday was dislodged from its actual birthday, the day simply became another day off work, a capstone to a three-day weekend. Advertisers began to use the term "Presidents' Day." And, well, the rest is history.

Today, Americans should take a cue from the veterans. They should cry foul!

And Congress and the states of the U.S. should move Washington's Birthday back to where it belongs.....on his birthday!!!

That means that, each year, the United States government (and all state governments) should recognize February 22 as a holiday to honor George Washington, the father of our country.

The February 22 holiday should recognize George Washington....and ONLY George Washington.

Anyone who says that George Washington doesn't deserve his own holiday is surely deprived of something we call "common sense." Anyone with a functioning brain should recognize the enormous contributions George Washington made to the United States and the fact that, without Washington, there likely wouldn't even be a United States today. Washington deserves every bit the moniker "Father of his Country."

It's only been since the Monday Holidays Act that people have begun to question this, now alleging that other Presidents warrant similar attention. Well, first, some Presidents shouldn't get ANY attention. And second, Washington isn't just being recognized for what he did as President. The purpose of his holiday was to recognize him for all of his accomplishments.

Chances are, though, that this wrong will not be righted. Too many people are used to hearing and saying "Presidents' Day." And people frankly love having three day weekends.

And, because of those two things, George Washington's legacy will continue to diminish each and every year.

Was Early America's Most Prominent Episcopalian Really a Deist?

**The following is an article I wrote for the Anglican Church section of Suite101 Protestantism.**

Was George Washington a Deist?
Examining One of America's Most Famous Episcopalians

No study of famous Episcopalians would be complete without examining the faith of George Washington. Yet of those who have studied George Washington and his Christian faith, many claim that America's most preeminent Founder was more Deist than Christian. Was George Washington, the most famous Anglican in American history, really a Deist?

Was George Washington Even Religious?

Presidential biographer William A. DeGregorio says religion factored "very little" into Washington's life (DeGregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. Barricade, 2001). Pulitzer Prize winning author Joseph Ellis similarly downplays Washington's faith, arguing that the nation's first President was “never a deeply religious man" and saw God merely “as a distant, impersonal force, the presumed well-spring of what he called destiny or providence" (Ellis, Joseph. His Excellency George Washington. Vintage, 2005). Does this characterization of Washington square with the historical record?

***The rest of this article can be found at "Was George Washington a Deist?" - a feature piece in the Protestantism section of Suite101.com.

Abraham Lincoln: Champion of America's Founding

In honor of Abraham Lincoln's birthday, let us briefly consider our nation's sixteenth President and one of the Founding Fathers' greatest cheerleaders. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was not a Founding Father, and this site concerns itself mainly with the period in American history that predates Mr. Lincoln's. But Lincoln counted himself as one of the Founders' strongest champions.

In an 1856 speech in Bloomington, Illinois, the future President declared: "Let us revere the Declaration of Independence!" In another speech that same year, he called the Declaration "the immortal emblem of Humanity." That these were not mere rhetorical flourishes is evidenced by Lincoln's numerous tributes to America's Founding Fathers and their founding documents.

It may seem difficult for people in this postmodern age to grasp, but Lincoln's very conception of the United States of America was based on its founding principles.

In The Political Thought of Abraham Lincoln, historian Richard N. Current wrote: "Lincoln passionately believed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United of the United States. To him, these documents were not merely historical relics; they embodied fundamental ideals, ideals in the process of realization, ideals that formed the basis for his political thinking."

Says writer Lewis Lehrman: "Mr. Lincoln had steeped himself in the history of the Founding. He understood both its politics and its purpose. And he worried that its meaning had been lost on a generation that associated it only with fireworks and celebrations." One wonders what he'd say of today's generation?

Lincoln faces critics today on primarily two fronts. On the one hand, some charge that Lincoln was a racist who never really believed in civil rights or had any real problem with slavery. He was, according to this view, "forced" into emancipating the slaves. This view of Lincoln is frankly both shallow and cynical.

Abraham Lincoln was a man of his times. From within the paradigm of his world (mid-1800s Illinois), he could not conceive of a future America, in which blacks and whites would enjoy racial equality and harmony. That is true, but he was nevertheless deeply troubled by slavery and sincere in his opposition to it. And, given the benefit of his eventual and very real friendship with Frederick Douglass and seeing firsthand the valor of African Americans in the Civil War, Lincoln's views on race evolved to the point that he was remarkably foresighted for a man of his generation.

The other criticism of Lincoln is that he was a tyrant who trampled on the rights of the southern states. Neither time nor space will allow me to get into the aspects of the Civil War, but let me say this. Abraham Lincoln's pro-Union perspective, which led him to forcibly resist southern secession, was consistent with that of former Presidents Andrew Jackson and George Washington. Were Jackson and Washington tyrants?

Abraham Lincoln was not a perfect man. He was, after all, a human being. And all human beings are flawed and imperfect. But Lincoln did aspire to values and principles greater than himself. For Lincoln, the greatness of the American people would come only with a reliance upon the values enshrined in their heritage.

Sure, Lincoln believed in the future. Yes, Lincoln didn't want any society stuck in the past. But Lincoln didn't believe progress required the jettisoning of core beliefs and values deeply embedded in America's founding. On the contrary, he felt that the success of America rested on its ability to carry forward those principles.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln!

The Blizzard of 1772: The Washington Area's Worst Snowstorm?

"Snowmageddon" is what Barack Obama has called the blizzard of 2010! And the blizzard of 2010 is indeed the worst winterstorm the Washington, DC area has suffered through in recorded history. But, apparently, the blizzard of 2010 isn't the worst ever. That "honor" may go to the blizzard of 1772, an event recorded in the diaries of both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

The blizzard of 1772 reportedly blanketed the entire mid-Atlantic region, including Pennsylvania, New York, Baltimore, and what is now Washington, DC. Given the lack of official records from that period, we have only scattered diary accounts and newspaper records to go by. But if these accounts are any indication, it was quite an event!

According to York County, Pennsylvania records, entire deer herds were destroyed by the blizzard. And both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington put the accumulation at over three feet. They were apparently trapped in their homes!

While the one-two punch of 2010's blizzard (the second punch is currently being felt in the region) may be just as bad, we at least have the benefit of technology to help us cope. Imagine being in the days of Jefferson and Washington, where there was no Internet, no Weather Channel, no weather satellites, no paved roads, and no snow plows.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

General Washington on Gays in the Military

If history is any indication, General George Washington would not be pleased with the current rush to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in America's armed forces. But it seems no one in the Obama administration is listening.

Following the lead of President Barack Obama, America's top two Defense Department officials called today for an end to the military's ban on open homosexual conduct. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both said that it was time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the United States armed services.

General George Washington, America's first military leader, disagreed. It would have been interesting to have General Washington present for the same hearing. I wonder if Congress would even listen to him, though, given the growing momentum for change.

Washington's position on gays serving openly in the military was seen in March 1778, with the case of Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin. Enslin was courtmartialed for "attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier" and "for Perjury in swearing to false Accounts."

In a report dictated apparently by Washington and copied out by his staff, the general's feelings are made clear. "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning..."

While some may argue that Washington's primary concern was with Lieutenant Enslin's aggressiveness or breach of protocol, it's more likely that the Continental Army Commander-in-Chief found Enslin's homosexual conduct itself to be "detestable" and a danger to unit morale and cohesion.

Does this make General Washington homophobic? Was our nation's first general an intolerant bigot?

While it would appear that the current policy's days are numbered and that change is indeed coming, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss Washington too quickly. Washington was a man of his times, but we make a grave error if we assume that Washington's times were, in all respects, inferior to our own.

It's true that the United States has enjoyed progress since the late 1700s on many fronts, including the rights and privileges of women and racial minorities. In those areas, we should recognize progress. And, frankly, had Washington lived through all the years of American history, a very compelling argument could be made that he would've evolved and grown WITH the country in terms of his attitudes on racial and gender equality. Washington, after all, changed his views on race in the course of his own life. His trajectory was clearly in the direction of ending slavery and embracing the rights of African Americans.

But the issue of gays in the military is somewhat different. Washington didn't order Enslin's dismissal, because he saw the man has being socially or genetically inferior. He dismissed Enslin, because of the man's actions and how those actions affected the army as a whole. What's more, for Washington, there was something moral at stake. This wasn't a case of social elitism. For Washington, it was a matter of proper conduct and moral behavior.

Indeed, it was Washington who issued another order, forbidding cursing in the Continental Army and challenging his men to conduct themselves as "Christian soldiers." For Washington, moral conduct was fundamental to the success and value of the army. A good soldier was an effective soldier, and a good army was a powerful army. When you allow immorality into the army, you poison its cohesion and effectiveness. That appears to have been Washington's perspective. And that is what lay at the root of his dismissing Enslin.

Lest you think I'm overplaying Washington's sense of morality, recall that, as President, he echoed a similar theme in his Farewell Address. In that speech (published and not delivered), Washington declared that "religion and morality" were "indispensable supports to political prosperity."

I understand that the issue of gays serving openly in the armed forces is a very sensitive and highly emotional one. And I know that, for some, it's difficult to see it as anything but a matter of rights. Nevertheless, I think we should be cautious, before we jettison the wisdom and example of our nation's first (and arguably noblest) military leader.