Adams' Alien & Sedition Acts

This Ain't No
Fairness Doctrine Here!

One of the major criticisms from the historical community of David McCullough's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John Adams is that he repeatedly downplays the significance of the Alien & Sedition Acts (for a link to these critics click here). In HBO's John Adams miniseries, the birth of the Alien & Sedition Acts are portrayed as being the idea of several cabinet members, and not from John Adams himself. And while it is true that his cabinet played an influential role in the development of the Alien & Sedition Acts, it is important to remember that both John and Abigail Adams were instrumental in creating these acts as well, and in fact were central to the creation of the Alien & Sedition Acts as opposed to being mere spectators as McCullough suggests.

First off, nobody can or should doubt the magnitude of the John Adams Presidency. As the successor of Washington, Adams faced challenges that would have toppled most leaders. The mere fact that Adams was following a living legend would have toppled almost any other successor. In addition, Adams was burdened with a mounting crisis with France over the seizure of American ships and sailors, not to mention the fact that the United States was still strapped with several economic and domestic problems at home. Needless to say, Adams' plate was full. It's no wonder why Washington [allegedly] whispered to Adams at the conclusion of his oath of office, "Ay, I am fairly out and you fairly in. Let's see which of us will be the happier."

It was because of this scrutiny that John Adams -- with the help of others -- created the Alien & Sedition Acts. Under these acts, the Federalists hoped to endow the President with the power to, "expel any non-naturalized persons of foreign birth whom the President judges to be of danger to the peace and safety of the United States without a hearing and without specifying any reason.” In addition, these laws called for the punishment of citizens who, "unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States…or to impede the operation of any law of the United States." They also stated that "any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government…or either the house of the Congress of the United States; or the President…with intent to defame" was punishable by imprisonment of up to five years"

Needless to say, the Democratic-republican reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts was extremely swift. Recalling the guaranteed protections of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson stated that, "this bill [the Sedition Act] and the Alien bill are both so palpably in the teeth of the constitution," that it was irrational for the Federalists to, "shew they mean to pay no respect to it." Jefferson went on to label the supporters of the Alien & Sedition Acts as, “monarchists,” “Tories,” “anti-republicans,” and “monocrats.”

In response to the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson -- along with the help of James Madison -- set out on a crusade to not only destroy the acts, but to also obliterate any chance for John Adams to win reelection. In what became known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson made the claim that:

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

As the election of 1800 drew closer, President Adams found himself in a political mess that virtually consumed him. The Dem-Republicans had labeled the President as a tyrant, and called the Alien and Sedition Acts, "the most abominable and degrading Executive act that could fall from the lips of the first magistrate of an independent people." In an effort to demonstrate just how "tyrannical" the Adams Administration had become, Jefferson called on renowned pamphleteer James Callender, a long-time enemy to the Federalists who had attacked the likes of Alexander Hamilton by exposing his affair with Maria Reynolds to the public. This time, Callender was to turn his sights on the president himself. In his popular pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, Callender pulled out all the punches by boldly proclaiming that John Adams had become little more than a tyrant:

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

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

In the end, the Alien & Sedition Acts helped to solidify the popular message of the Democratic-republicans, which, in turn, led to the election of their beloved Thomas Jefferson. The popularity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, combined with the "mud-slinging" efforts of James Callender, helped to ensure the demise of the Adams Administration. For the Federalists, this was a blow that caused a severe setbacks to their cause. For John Adams, the Alien & Sedition Acts became the darkest stain of his presidency, one which continues to stick with him to this day.

Though often considered to be the biggest blunder of his presidency, it is important for us to understand why John Adams embraced the Alien & Sedition Acts. To be certain, his goal was not to become a tyrant. Instead, Adams was trying to protect the presidency -- and the nation for that matter -- from what he deemed to be a serious threat to the country's security. This is in no way an excuse for the Adams Administration. The Alien & Sedition Acts were, after all, entirely unconstitutional. With that said, it is still important for us to understand the motives behind these acts.

Here is a clip from the HBO miniseries, John Adams, which presents and interesting perspective behind the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts:



***On a side note, it's worth mentioning that upon his election to the presidency, Thomas Jefferson pardoned James Callender for his "slanderous" acts against President Adams. However, Callender was not satisfied. Upon his release, Callender petitioned the president for an appointment to the Postmaster General of Richmond. President Jefferson did not acquiesce to his demands. As a result, Callender turned his attack on Jefferson. In a series of articles, Callender accused Jefferson of committing a "gross and vile affair" with one of his female slaves...the one and only Sally Hemmings! Oh the irony of history!***

Tea Parties: 18th Century v. 21st Century

Comparing the Boston Tea Party to the various tea parties that took place across the nation last week is complex to say the least. After all, we're trying to compare 18th century America with today's society. Most of the social, cultural, and technological norms are completely different now. The majority of American colonists wouldn't even recognize modern America as being their "stomping ground."

With that said, here are a few specific differences between the tea parties of today and the original tea party of 1773:

1. First off, the legacy of the Boston Tea Party (1773) has been used on a number of occasions. In fact, Mahondas Gandhi (not Mahatma Gandhi) invoked the legacy of the Boston Tea Party in 1908 by inspiring his fellow Indians to burn British registration cards. In the early 1970s there were a large number of gatherings that called themselves "tea parties." At one “I Love America” rally led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, followers were asked to burn bags of tea, symbolizing the people’s anger over the newly-enacted Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the 200th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, protestors gathered at the White House to call for the impeachment of then President Richard Nixon by throwing bags of tea on the White House lawn. In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor. And finally, in 2006 a breakoff of the Libertarian Party called the “Boston Tea Party” was founded.

2. The motivations behind today’s tea parties and the original tea party of 1773 are completely different. The Boston Tea Party (1773) was actually a protest AGAINST a corporate tax cut, as opposed to today’s tea parties which protested rising taxes and an increase of government spending, etc. In 1773, The British East India Company was nearly bankrupt and instead of providing a "bailout" or government loan, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which eliminated for this company the duty on tea exported to America. As a result, smaller merchants in the colonies were expected to suffer, since they didn’t received the same tax cuts as the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the peak of a boycott against a company that got huge corporate tax cuts granted to them by the government. Once the ships from the East India Company arrived in Boston’s harbor, men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock were quick to seize the opportunity and turn it into a political advantage by rallying local Boston merchants to their cause. On December 16, after assembling at the Old South Church to express their grievances, Samuel Adams stood and gave the “secret message” to his devout “Sons of Liberty” (and Masons) to assemble at the docks, where they had their “tea party.” 342 chests of tea (property of the East India Company) were seized and dumped into Boston Harbor.

Now, this is often contrary to what many people know about the Boston Tea Party. After all, most Americans believe that the American Revolution was the result of taxes being levied against them by Britain. This isn’t 100% accurate. To understand the role that taxes played in the American Revolution we must go back to 1765. The British Empire, fresh of its complete rout of the French in the French and Indian War, was faced with a mounting debt as a result of that war. As a result, Parliament decided to levy a small tax (a fraction of one percent) against the colonists in America. Parliament believed that the colonists needed to play off a small portion of Britain’s debt, since the war had been fought to protect the colonists in the first place. As a result, the STAMP ACT was passed. However, the colonists exploded in anger and protested the act. Led by Boston Revolutionary Samuel Adams, the colonists succeeded in having the Stamp Act repealed. One of the main reasons for their success was their usage of the old propaganda phrase, “No taxation without representation,” which had been coined in 1750 by Reverend John Mayhew. By repealing the Stamp Act, the colonists believed they had succeeded and that everything would be ok.

The colonists’ excitement, however, was to be short-lived. In 1766 Parliament passed the often forgotten DECLARATORY ACT, which stated that Parliament had the right and power to govern its colonies, “in all cases whatsoever.” In essence, this became the catalyst for the revolution. It created a “showdown” between the legitimacy of Parliament’s rule and the sovereignty of the colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would quote the Declaratory Act several times in the Declaration of Independence.

So, while taxes were an issue early on, it is important to realize that they played a very limited role in bringing about the American Revolution.

3. The Boston Tea Party was an illegal action of a mob that committed assault, theft, destruction of property, etc. The tea parties of today did no such thing (at least to my knowledge). The Boston Tea Party was literally an act of defiance to the laws of the British. The participants were willfully and knowingly being insubordinate to the will of King and country. The results of their actions caused the British to impose a complete blockade of Boston Harbor. Today’s tea parties, while an expression of anger/intolerance of current government decisions, did not invoke the same response nor did it take the same radical steps of defiance.

4. Today’s tea party participants claim that their petition was a “grass roots” movement led and organized by the people. The Boston Tea Party was not. It was led by prominent and influential Bostonians like Samuel Adams and the VEEEERY rich John Hancock, who, interestingly enough, stood to lose a fortune by the East India Company. His motives were not as pure as we are often taught.

5. The Boston Tea Party was NOT assembled out of a growing concern over the size of government, government spending, etc. Instead it was assembled on issues like colonial sovereignty v. Parliamentary rule, corporate tax breaks, and a lack of government funding for the development of the American merchant class. In fact, this last point (the development of the American merchant class) was a fundamental issue for Thomas Paine in his extremely influential pamphlet, “Common Sense.” It’s worth noting that political activist Glenn Beck has quoted Thomas Paine on several occasions, especially during the tea parties of last week. However, Beck neglects to recognize the fact that Paine was IN FAVOR of bigger government, more government spending, higher taxes, welfare programs, etc.

And while the differences between the tea parties of today and the Boston Tea Party of 1773 are vast, it’s important to remember that at the heart they share the same basic principle: that the people are where sovereignty and power ultimately reside…at least that is the hope of its participants, whether in the 18th or 21st century. And it’s likely that we haven’t seen the end to the legacy of the Boston Tea Party!!!

Land of Confusion: Will We Ever Sort it all Out?

At American Creation, one of the repeating arguments that we tackle almost on a weekly basis centers around the issue of how much "God talk" did the founding fathers want in American society and government. Did the founders hope for a plethora of religious discussion to take place in the halls of government? Or were they hoping to create a secular government based on human reason and intellect that would be free from the "shackles" of religious tyranny?

Of course our blog is not the first or only forum in which these discussions take place. A countless number of books, blogs, television outlets, etc. have immersed themselves in this "custody battle" for the religious -- or anti-religious -- heritage of America's founding. I believe author Steven Waldman effectively illustrates this ongoing "war" for America's founding heritage when he writes:

The "religious" side wants less separation of church and state, and the "secularists" want more...For starters, many conservatives believe that if they can show that the Founding Fathers were very religious, they thereby also prove that the Founders abhorred separation of church and state...Some liberals, meanwhile, feel the need to prove the Founders were irreligious or secular and therefore, of course, in favor of separation...But in the heat of this custody battle over the spiritual lives of the Founding Fathers, BOTH SIDES DISTORT HISTORY...In fact, the culture wars have so warped our sense of history that we typically have a very limited understanding of how we came to have religious liberty. (Founding Faith, 7).

And this is the central problem. in the heat of this "custody battle" both the Christian nation supporters and the American secularists have lost their way in the labyrinth of popular culture.

Attempting to grasp the historical facts of America's founding heritage is a messy prospect regardless of one's persuasion. Even the very participants in America's revolution understood this. As John Adams stated to his Virginia comrade, Thomas Jefferson:

Who shall write the history of the American Revolution? Who can write it? Who will ever be able to write it?

Jefferson's response is equally provocative:

Nobody...except merely its external facts...The life and soul of its history must be forever unknown.

So can we ever actually hope to ascertain America's true religious heritage? At least one man believes so. And not only does he vehemently support the "Christian Nation" agenda but he also makes the boogeyman cower in fear. Yes, I am talking about the one and only Chuck Norris!

As a contributor to WorldNetDaily, Norris has written several pieces on America's Godly heritage. In October of this year, however, Norris aimed his attacks at the new $621 million dollar Capitol Visitor Center, which Norris believes is nothing more than a tribute to American political correctness. Norris writes:

Religious revisionism is popping up again in the new Capitol Visitor Center...Absent is anything that discusses our Christian or religious heritage. That is why Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and the 108 congressional members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus recently petitioned the Architect of the Capitol by letter, which details and documents the incomplete and inaccurate religious content in the Capitol Visitor Center.

Norris then lists the specific religious components that are missing from the Visitor Center:

1. No mention of our national motto, "In God We Trust"

2. In displaying images of the current speaker's rostrum in the House chamber, the phrase "In God We Trust" is omitted from its location engraved in marble above the speaker's head;

3. The opening words in Article 3 in the Northwest Ordinance (1787) are excluded from an exhibit. The actual article reads, "Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." The exhibit article reads: "Art. 3. … schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

4. There are factual inaccuracies regarding church services held at the Capitol in early decades of our republic, saying they were held when Congress wasn't in session, when in fact they were held year around – and even the so-labeled strict-separatist Thomas Jefferson attended them throughout his eight years of presidency.

5. The exhibits include photos from Earth Day, an AIDS rally, various casino grounds and factories, but it does not include photos from monumental religious events such as the National Day of Prayer or the March for Life event, attended by thousands annually, etc.

6. There is an absence of any major display or description of the religious influence within or about the 200-plus year history of the Capitol.

But not everyone is upset with the portrayal of America's religious heritage as presented in the Capitol Visitor's Center. Sandhya Bathija of Americans United For the Separation of Church and State expressed his extreme opposition to the work being done by the Christian Nation crowd. He writes:

The version of American history pushed by Barton and Forbes is their own skewed version. For the rest of us, we have learned since kindergarten that our founding fathers had enough sense to keep religion out of government and government out of religion in order to preserve religious liberty for all.

I’m pleased that the new Capitol Visitor Center hasn’t yielded to Religious Right propagandists. I hope it doesn’t do so now.

In conclusion, here is a Youtube video posted by Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and staunch supporter of the Christian right. The video addresses the Senator's specific grievances with the new Visitor's Center and what he would like to see changed:



And here are some parting words from Chuck himself:

America's fathers wholeheartedly believed in the premise stated in Psalm 33:12, which says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." But what would they have thought of a nation that removes God from its heritage, classroom instructions, civic ceremonies, buildings, monuments, historic sites, etc.? I believe the words of Thomas Jefferson are as fitting for religious apostasy as they were for slavery, words that were inscribed upon his memorial in Washington, D.C., around 1940: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.

-If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.

-There is no 'ctrl' button on Chuck Norris's computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.

-Chuck Norris can sneeze with his eyes open.

-Chuck Norris can eat just one Lay's potato chip.

-Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

-Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird

"Prefer Christians for their Rulers"

John Jay: The Quintessential Christian
Nation Advocate of the 18th Century
by Brad Hart

Not all of our founding fathers were "theistic rationalists." In fact, some were quite orthodox in their views. Though I still maintain my belief that the majority of the founders held to a more unitarian faith in divinity, I cannot deny that some believed quite passionately in their orthodox faith.

Take for instance John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers, President of the American Bible Society, and our nation's first Supreme Court justice. Jay, who was very much a devout Episcopalian, kept most of his religious beliefs private during the course of his life. However, when Jay did speak out about religion it was very easy to know where he stood. For example, Jay was so insistent on keeping with the traditional orthodoxy of the Anglican/Episcopal faith that he was among the minority who sought for the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury when it came to the ordination of new Episcopal bishops.

I am surprised that more Christian nation apologists do not invoke the legacy of John Jay. In my brief readings of Jay's letters, etc. I have found him to be a powerful supporter of Christian orthodoxy and of the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. And though I disagree with Jay's conclusions, the fact remains that he was a powerfully influential founding father who stuck to his guns on this issue.

I guess it comes as no surprise to me that Wallbuilders has jumped all over the records of John Jay, and who can blame them. Jay is arguably one of the more appealing founders for the Christian nation crowd. Just take for example the infamous quote Jay made on the subject of voting:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privledge and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

In addition, Jay's words on America's providential destiny to precede the second coming of Jesus Christ is sure to excite Christian Nation advocates everywhere:

There is certainly reason to suspect, that as great providential events have usually been proceded and introduced by the intervention of providential means to prepare the way for them, so the great event in question will be preceded and introduced in like manner. It is, I think, more than probable, that the unexpected and singular co-operation, and the extraordinary zeal and efforts of almost all Christian nations to extend the light and knowledge of the gospel, and to inculcate its doctrines, are among those preparatory means. It is the duty of Christians to promote the prevalence and success of such means, and look forward with faith and hope to the result of them.

And while speaking of the differences between Europe and America, Jay wrote:

I sometimes flatter myself that Providence, in compassion to the afflicted of these countries, will continue to leave America in a proper state to be an asylum to them.

And finally:

To what events this country may in future be instrumental, is indeed uncertain, but I cannot persuade myself that Providence has created such a nation, in such a country, to remain like dust in the balance of others.

So while I agree that the majority of our founders were more unitarian and less orthodox in their faith than Jay, it would be a mistake to categorize ALL the founders as such. For in Jay, the Christian Nation crowd has a powerful advocate.

Long Live King Washington???

But the United States doesn't have a royal family...right? Well, we could have.

As the rumor states, a group of frustrated American colonists, fed up with the lack of productivity in the Continental Congress, actually considered a coup d' etat of the national government and the establishment of a monarchy, with George Washington as its king. A 1782 letter to Washington from Colonel Lewis Nichola is a perfect illustration of just how frustrated some colonists were beginning to feel with the infant American government. Colonel Nichola writes:

This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republicks, and the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head...Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things are once adjusted I believe strong arguments might he produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantage. …Republican bigots will certainly consider my opinions as heterdox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire and fagots, I have therefore hitherto kept them within my own breast [my emphasis].

Washington, however, despised such suggestions, dismissing them as virtual heresies. In response to Colonel Nichola's letter, Washington wrote:

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. [my emphasis].

In his typically stern, yet gentlemanly style, Washington made it abundantly clear that he stood opposed to an American monarchy.

But what if he had embraced the idea of being King?

In a recent Newsweek web article, Kurt Soller discusses how genealogy buffs, for the past century, have been toying over the notion of a Washington monarchy and what it would have meant for America today.

Genealogists have been pondering the possibilities had President Washington been a bit more power-hungry. As early as 1908, newspapers published accounts of history buffs who worked their way through the Washington family tree using rules of succession to determine the rightful heir to the theoretical American throne. But without the Internet, branches of the Washington tree would be lost in Ohio, say, or forgotten by lineage sleuths who couldn't quite decipher a family tree made complicated because Washington himself didn't have any children.

But while brainstorming ideas for their election-themed coverage, Ancestry.com turned to their Chief Family Historian, Megan Smolenyak, for an answer to the historical mystery. Smolenyak first turned to Google where she figured out that, because kinship rules vary by country and because Washington was childless, there were four possible kings (or queens) among the nearly 8,000 descendants of Washington who are alive today.

So, who would be "King" of America today had Washington accepted such a position?

Eighty-two-year-old Paul Emery Washington of San Antonio, Texas, a relatively average American who spent his life climbing the corporate ladder of a building supply company would be your king. And what does Mr. Washington think of such a distinction? Well, the offer is flattering but not all that appealing. He states:

"I doubt if I'd be a very good king. We've done so well as a country without a king, so I think George made the best decision. He fought for eight years to do away with the monarchy, and I think he made the right decision. The idea of one individual having supreme power over all others is an antiquated idea -- to say the least."

A 269-269 Tie???

It's at Least a Possibility...Thanks to Our Founders

As the election approaches its final climax we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. As a result, the likelihood of a 269-269 tie in the electoral college is becoming more likely with each passing day. Though odds-makers claim that a 269-269 tie is relatively low, the fact remains that this outcome is still within the realm of possibility.

So what happens if the election ends in an electoral college tie? Most people think that the popular vote would then come into play. WRONG! The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution spells out what will happen in the event of a 269-269 tie.

If we have a tie on November 4th, the House of Representatives will convene on January 6th to vote for the next president of the United States. Now, most Republicans fear this outcome because of the fact that the Democrats are favored to pick up a few seats in the house. However, the voting is NOT based on a MAJORITY in the House. Instead, the 12th Amendment stipulates that EACH STATE gets one vote. This means that a heavily populated state like California will be on the EXACT SAME playing field as Wyoming and other small states. So, what will happen is each state delegation will meet and cast their vote for the next president. If the state has a Republican majority then the state will likely vote for McCain. Here is an example:

Arkansas (which has 4 representatives in the House) is split with 3 Democrats and 1 Republican. In the event of a 269-269 tie, these four representatives would meet and (most likely) cast their vote for Obama, being that the Democrats have the majority in that state's delegation. HOWEVER, keep in mind that Arkansas is heavily favored to go for McCain on November 4. So if these delegates voted for Obama they would be essentially voting AGAINST the will of their constituents. This scenario is evident in at least 15 other states as well.

In addition, if a state has an equal number of Democrat and Republican representatives and their vote results in a tie, that state will ABSTAIN from a vote on the president.

So what does all this mean? In all likelihood it means that Barack Obama would probably emerge as the president in the event of a 269-269 tie, but it is FAR from certain. There are still a number of scenarios in which John McCain could be declared the winner. In reality it is anyone's guess.

Another important component to keep in mind in the event of a 269-269 tie is that the SENATE will vote for the V.P. Being that the Democrats are favored to pick up a couple of seats in the Senate it is likely that they would vote for Biden, however, this is far from a guarantee. Keep in mind that senators may end up voting with the masses they represent, so as not to upset their constituents. Also, Joe Lieberman (an Independent) is likely to go with the Republicans on this one. In the event of a tie in the Senate, we must remember that the current V.P. (Dick Cheney) would cast the tie-breaking vote, which would in all likelihood go Republican.

Again, what does this mean? It means that there is a possibility of having a MIXED presidential ticket in the event of a 269-269 tie. We could end up seeing an Obama/Palin or a McCain/Biden White House.

One more wrench to throw into the equation: if the vote in the House of Representatives for president ends in a tie (or gridlock) the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an INTERIM PRESIDENT from their V.P. selection, who would then serve for two years until the next HOR convened in the following election (2010). This means that if the HOR ends in a tie or gridlock, we could have Joe Biden or Sarah Palin end up serving a two-year term as President of the United States.

Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment.

So how did we end up like this in the first place? It all goes back to the 1800 presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate with the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Jefferson was the clear winner over presidential incumbent, John Adams. However, the electors (who had 2 votes instead of one) also accidentally gave Aaron Burr (who was intended to be Jefferson's V.P.) the same amount of votes. As a result, the election went to the House, where delegates loyal to Adams tried to get Burr placed in the White House over Jefferson. In the end, Jefferson won out, but only after months of controversy. As a result, the 12th Amendment was created, which was supposed to clean up the mess. Only time will tell if the 12th Amendment ends up CREATING a new mess in the 21st Century!!!

Here is an interesting Youtube video that helps explain this mess:

How well do YOU Know the Preamble?

How well do YOU know the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States? Hopefully, you know it better than ole Barney Fife. :-)

"America is a Christian Nation...But so is Hell": Garry Wills on Separation of Church & State

Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Garry Wills discusses separation of church and state. Excellent video.

Gary Nash on "Conservative-Culture Warriors" and Historical "Revision"

Historian Gary Nash of UCLA is not only one of the most respected historians on early American history, but has also received praise for the fact that his scholarship has breathed new life into America's sense of historical appreciation. In recent years, Nash's work has challenged many of the traditional assumptions surrounding America' founding. Everything from the role of slavery and women to the influence of religion on America's 18th century revolution has been a part of Nash's "assault" on traditional early American historiography.

In his most recent book, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America, Nash challenges the idea that the American Revolution was merely a conflict between rival elites in Britain and America. Instead, Nash boldly proclaims the revolution as being inspired and led by the masses.

In addition, Nash challenges a number of the beliefs held by Christian Nationalists in regards to America's founding. Nash proclaims America's establishment and success as being the result of enlightened secularist ideology, which caused the American populace to challenge the social, political and religious norms of their day. In so doing, America became not a "Christian" government but a secular institution, which sought to keep religion and government separate from one another.

Naturally, the scholarship of Gary Nash does not sit well with hard-core Christian apologists such as David Barton and others. In response, Christian zealots have sought to label historians like Nash as being "unpatriotic" or as "secular revisionists" that are bent on eliminating any and all remnants of America's "Christian heritage."

Gary Nash was not ignorant of the fact that his work would stir up hostilities. In his introduction, Nash addresses his critics by writing the following:

When historians fix their gaze downward or write a warts-and-all American history, they often offend people who cherish what they remember as a more coherent, worshipful, and supposedly annealing rendition of the past. In the history of the 1990s, many conservative-culture warriors called historians offering new interpretations of the American Revolution – or any other part of American history – “history bandits,” “history pirates,” or, sneeringly, “revisionists” intent on kidnapping history with no respect for a dignified rendition of the past. Yet the explosion of historical knowledge has invigorated history and increased its popularity...

Unsurprisingly, those of the old school do not like to hear the question "whose history?" It is unsettling for them to see the intellectual property of the American Revolution, once firmly in the hands of a smaller and more homogeneous historians' guild, taken out of their safe boxes, put on the table, and redivided. Yet what could be more democratic than to reopen questions about the Revolution's sources, conduct, and results? And what is the lasting value of a "coherent" history if the coherence is obtained by eliminating the jagged edges, where much of the vitality of the people is to be found? How can we expect people to think of the American Revolution as their own when they can see no trace of their forbears in it?

Then Nash puts the smack down on those who favor a "traditional" interpretation of the American Revolution as being exclusively a conflict of the elite:

A history of inclusion has another claim to make. Only a history that gives play to all the constituent parts of society can overcome the defeatist notion that the past was inevitably determined...Honest history can impart a sense of how the lone individual counts, how the possibilities of choice are infinite, how human capacity for both good and evil is ever present, and how dreams of a better society are in the hands of the dispossessed as much as in the possession of the putative brokers of our society's future.

If this is "secular revisionism," or "historical piracy" then count me in!

Myths of History

Jon Rowe, a fellow blogger over at American Creation, posted this video in response to an ongoing debate we are having. Though the video is a little bizarre, it does shed light on an important issue. The ongoing battle between true history and popular culture can often cause many Americans to succumb to a number of half-truths and myths regarding our nation's founding. After all, the founding fathers have become virtual demigods that it is almost impossible to shake the myth away from the truth. Weather these myths take the form of Washington chopping down a cherry tree or Jefferson standing as a stalwart supporter of Christianity, the fact is that these myths pollute our TRUE heritage, which, in my opinion, does not need the help of Christian Nationalists in order to appear grand. The truth is always better than fiction, especially when it comes to our nation's founding. If we continue to categorize our founders as legendary demigods we will never be able to appreciate their true greatness. After all, people are never impressed when demigods accomplish greatness. It is expected. But when normal human beings with with flaws, vices and blemishes accomplish something great, humanity rejoices. Such is the case of our founders. These were imperfect men and women that accomplished greatness. So instead of accepting the legends, fables and myths of popular culture, let us strive to learn the TRUE history of our nation's founding, even if it doesn't sound as nice as the popular culture/myth version.

Now that I have finished my rant, enjoy the video:

American Founding, by Focus on the Family

Taking a vacation to the snow-capped Rocky Mountains of Colorado is an appealing attraction for thousands of Americans every year. As most can imagine, Colorado is consistently in the top five states for tourism every year, thanks to its impressive displays of nature.

Having lived most of my life in Colorado -- and while currently residing in Colorado Springs -- I have had the privilege of exploring what this region of the country has to offer. When most people think about Colorado Springs, usually the first images that pop into their mind are those of Pikes Peak, Garden of the Gods, Cave of the Winds, the U.S. Olympic Training Center the United States Air Force Academy, and of course...FOCUS ON THE FAMILY.

As most of you are aware, Focus on the Family is a powerful Evangelical organization that is dedicated to furthering their interpretation of Christian and family values. In addition, Focus on the Family has been deeply involved in the political and historical arenas by focusing on a conservative agenda of Christian ideology. As a result, Focus on the Family has become a powerful voice in the shaping of political and American historical thought for many of its followers.

With that said, I thought some of you might enjoy a brief "virtual tour" of the Focus of the Family Welcome Center, where they provide a brief preview of their take on early American history and the role of religion in shaping that history. First off, I must apologize for the mediocre quality of the video that I took during my visit. My camera is not the best and unfortunately the batteries don't last long. With this in mind, I give you The history of America's founding, by Focus on the Family:

The advertisement for "The Truth Project," which includes Focus on the Family's take on the religious origins -- specifically Christian origins -- of America's founding

The "Drive Thru History America: Foundations of Character" Campaign

Next to the advertisement for "The Truth Project" there is a display for the National Day of Prayer, which they also specify with a national day of thanksgiving to God for the religious faithfulness of the founding fathers

And now, as promised, the video:

Here are some additional pictures:

The entrance to Focus on the Family

The Administration building

The Welcome Center

Entrance to the Welcome Center

The Library

The current "Book of the Month"

Art of the Revolution

Political Stuff

**FYI, I have intentionally withheld my personal opinions of this video and of Focus on the Family in general, so that you could make your own opinions without any influence on my part. Though I do not personally agree with a lot of what Focus on the Family stands for, particularly their take on early American history, I do want to emphasize that my visit to their Welcome Center was very enjoyable. I was impressed by their friendliness and assistance. Their facilities are extraordinary to say the least.**

Relic of the Revolution

A bit of history was rediscovered this past week as divers who were exploring Lake Ontario stumbled upon a priceless piece of the past. A 22-gun British warship that sank during the American Revolution -- in 1780 to be exact -- was found resting at the bottom of this Great Lake, where it has been residing for the past 228 years.

The ship is in remarkably good condition, according to the divers, archaeologists and historians involved in the discovery. Not only is the 80-foot ship entirely intact, but its main mast and some of the original rigging still remain. Ironically enough, this British vessel of War, which was named the HMS Ontario, met its final demise in the very lake that shares its name.

In an article from the Associated Press, Jim Kennard and Dan Scoville -- the two men who discovered the Ontario -- stated that this boat has been considered as a "holy Grail" of sorts by shipwreck and treasure enthusiasts. In addition, the article went on to state the following information regarding this historic find:

"To have a Revolutionary War vessel that's practically intact is unbelievable. It's an archaeological miracle," said Canadian author Arthur Britton Smith, who chronicled the history of the HMS Ontario in a 1997 book, "The Legend of the Lake."

The finders of the wreck said they regard it as a war grave and have no plans to raise it or remove any of its artifacts. They said the ship is still considered the property of the British Admiralty.

Although the vessel sits in an area where the water is up to 500 feet deep and cannot be reached by anyone but the most experienced divers, Kennard and Scoville declined to give its exact location, saying only that it was found off the southern shore.

The sloop was discovered resting partially on its side, with two masts extending more than 70 feet above the lake bottom.

"Usually when ships go down in big storms, they get beat up quite a bit. They don't sink nice and square. This went down in a huge storm, and it still managed to stay intact," Scoville said. "There are even two windows that aren't broken. Just going down, the pressure difference, can break the windows. It's a beautiful ship."

Smith, who was shown underwater video of the find, said: "If it wasn't for the zebra mussels, she looks like she only sunk last week."

David Barton is at it again

Since we have been on a recent video kick, I figured that I would try to get in on the action. In the video that I have posted below, David Barton discusses why our founders were strict Christians and why American historians -- who by the way have MUCH more training in this field than Barton -- are destroying our "godly heritage."

Right from the start, Barton argues that those who seek to eradicate religion from our heritage have essentially hijacked American history. Barton points to the Mayflower Compact, which he argues is proof that the Pilgrims desired to "propagate the Christian religion in the New World." Obviously Barton has little to no historical knowledge of what the Pilgrims -- a more correct title being Separatists -- actually desired. After all, these Separatists actually wanted to ensure that their religious communities were kept pure from heathen influences, thus the spreading of the gospel to the "savages" of America was never as big of a goal as people like Barton might think. In addition, the Mayflower Compact was NOT created to instigate the "propagation of Christianity" as Barton argues, but was created to ensure that the settlers would be free from contractual servitude. Since the Mayflower was landed in Plymouth and not Virginia -- its original destination -- those on board felt that a contractual agreement needed to be created. It was essentially a social contract that was drawn up by the colonists for survival's sake.

Following his comments on the Mayflower Compact, Barton proceeds to point out that even our national holidays, specifically Christmas, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July, serve as evidence to support America's godly heritage. While he is right to point out that Washington and Adams called for national days of thanksgiving, he forgets to mention that Jefferson unequivocally refused to do the same during his presidency. As far as Christmas is concerned, Barton is again showing his terrible lack of historical literacy. If he understood early American history at all, he would have known that Christmas was not a major holiday. In fact, early Puritan communities forbade the celebration of Christmas, since there was no reference to it in the Bible. After the establishment of the American republic, Christmas remained nothing more than a mere side note. In fact, the celebration of Christmas as we know it today has its origins in 19th century America, NOT with our founders (for more on the celebration of Christmas in colonial America click here).

As far as Barton's references to Gouverneur Morris, I think Jon's posting on Morris' character is the bests source to refute Barton's assertions.

I also found it interesting when Barton stated that American universities are teaching that our founders are nothing more than "agnostics and atheists" and that "not one believed in God." While I cannot speak to the curriculums of every University in America, I am still inclined to disagree with these claims. Having attended three different college institutions -- not to mention a number of additional lectures at other colleges and Universities -- I have NEVER heard this claim being made by a single professor of history. Again, I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that a legitimate professor of early American would make such a silly assertion as Barton suggests.

Barton also mentions that the founders would be appalled that we today are arguing over whether or not "In God we Trust" should be included on our money. Again, Barton's historical ignorance is shining through like a bright star on a clear night. Obviously Barton does not realize that "In God We Trust" was not conceived by our founders, but was first inspired during the Civil War (click here for more info on this topic). In fact, the only motto that our founders embraced was "e pluribus unum," which means "From many, one." A far cry from what Barton suggests.

"Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 27 had seminary degrees." This ridiculous statement by Barton YET AGAIN illustrates his lack of accurate historical knowledge. Chris Rodda, an avid Barton-debunker, effectively points out the errors in Barton's argument when she writes the following:

The use of the word "seminary" in this statement can have no other purpose than to take advantage of the fact that almost nobody today would associate the word seminary with anything other than a theological seminary, and would assume from this synonym for college that almost half the signers studied for the ministry. While it is true that all of the colleges attended by the signers of the Declaration had been founded by religious denominations, none of them were strictly theological colleges when the signers attended them. They all had schools of law and/or other sciences. Few adults, let alone children hearing the word seminary in their Bible literacy class, will realize that this word can mean any kind of school...

David Barton points out that of the fifty-six men, definitely twenty-four, possibly twenty-seven, had seminary degrees.

All this means, of course, is that twenty-seven of the signers of the Declaration went to college -- twenty at a total of five different American colleges, and seven in Europe. Twenty-four definitely received degrees; three don't appear to have graduated. Almost all of the twenty-seven studied either law or business, and one studied medicine.

One thing that Barton does very well is to illustrate that the overwhelming majority of the founders were NOT Deists. On this claim I am in complete agreement with Barton. However, Barton simply assumes that since the founders were not deists, they must therefore be orthodox in their Christian views. This claim is not only ridiculous but is utterly false based on the evidence that Barton himself presents. Though Barton effectively points to a very small number of orthodox Christians -- Sam Adams, John Jay and Charles Carroll for example -- this does not prove the orthodoxy of the rest.

Another ridiculous point that Barton attempts to make is when he points to Franklin's admonition that Congress pray before beginning the business of the day. While he is right in citing Franklin's petition for prayer, Barton forgets to mention the fact that the other founders present at this particular meeting rejected Franklin's suggestion. Again, this is another example of Barton's propensity to only promote half-truths.

Another example of Barton's half-truths is when he suggests that the founders never advocated a separation of church and state. He supports this argument simply by stating that the church/state phrase is not present in the Constitution itself. However, Barton obviously forgets the fact that Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, and George Mason's Declaration of Rights all petition for a separation of church and state

In the end, David Barton is a very effective public speaker and preacher of religion, but he is a lousy historian. His distortions of historical fact are staggering to say the least. What is even scarier than Barton's obvious falsehoods is the fact that a large number of people believe him and take his work to be absolute doctrine, and at the same time are willing to disregard the legitimate scholarly work of the overwhelming majority of historians across this nation. Who exactly is the hypocrite?

George Washington's Inauguration

As fellow blogger Ray Soller (of American Creation) has noted, there is a great deal of skepticism over whether or not George Washington uttered the phrase, "So help me God" at the conclusion of his oath of office. To be honest, this is an issue that I have never before considered. Like most people, I probably just assumed that the historical record accurately accounted for the authenticity of this event. However, as Mr. Soller has pointed out in his excellent article (Freeman's Oath - reference), there is strong reason to not only question but to doubt the legitimacy of the "So help me God" claim.

Like most history nerds, I was a devout follower of HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams. One of the most powerful scenes of the entire series is the inauguration of George Washington as the republic's first president. Not only does the scene attempt to recreate the oath of office -- including Washington uttering "So help me God," -- but the whole clip effectively arouses a sense of Christian patriotism, which I am sure was extremely effective in invoking a "spiritual" response from the average viewer.

To be perfectly honest, I have absolutly no idea if Washington did or did not conclude his oath of office with, "So help me God." I do believe, however, that Mr. Soller has shed light on some very important evidence that should be considered in detail. Hopefully we can continue this discussion, including the views of those who support the "So help me God" claim.

Here is the Washington Inauguration according to HBO's John Adams:

Alexander Hamilton's House

Alexander Hamilton is moving. Or better put, his home is moving. After roughly 200 years of residing in downtown New York city, Hamilton's beloved home -- known as the Grange -- will be relocated a block away in St. Nicholas Park. The home will also be receiving a much needed renovation -- $8.4 million dollars worth to be exact -- that should ensure the home's survival for decades to come.

David Dunlap of the The New York Times has written an excellent article regarding the home's history over the past 200 years. As the article states:

Now, in the house he left behind, Hamilton is again coming to life. To their joy, National Park Service officials have discovered that the front stairway, though much modified over time, is essentially the one built for Hamilton, complete with original risers, treads, balusters, ornamental scrollwork and support structure. It will be rebuilt in its original form.

Alexander Hamilton ran up those very treads!” said Steve Laise, chief of cultural resources of Manhattan sites for the National Park Service, which owns and runs the Grange. “It just puts you in such close proximity with the past. For those of us who really wish we were living back then anyway, it’s probably more of a stimulus to our imagination than we really ought to have.”

“Lovely exterior details are also evident for the first time in more than a century, including a triple-hung sash window. Smaller windows on either side have an alternating star-and-circle tracery. “That kind of pattern is well rooted in 18th-century Anglo-American design practice,” said Seth Joseph Weine, a fellow of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America.

Though the project is expected to cost another couple of million dollars to complete -- worth every penny if you ask me -- Hamilton's home is expected to be completely restored to its original state. So the next time you are in New York, make sure to pay Mr. Hamilton a visit at his new abode in St. Nicholas Park!

The Danger of David Barton

In light of some of the recent discussions on religion that this blog has witnessed, I thought you might all engage in a good debate over this topic.

Over the past few years, I have maintained a serious problem with the "history" of David Barton. Barton's blatant bias, combined with his lack of historical integrity shocks me. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are some GREAT historians out there who embrace evangelical teachings, but Barton's agenda is so transparent that I cannot see how people take him seriously. I realize that my saying this might be construed as insensitive or insulting. By no means am I trying to be this way. In fact, I think it is important for you all to know that I embrace evangelical teachings myself. With that said, however, I cannot believe a word that comes out of David Barton's mouth, when he talks about history. Where is his training? Certainly it is not in history.

Arguably the most ridiculous claims made by Barton come from his book, America's Godly Heritage, where he states that 52 of the 55 signers to the Declaration of Independence were "orthodox" or "evangelical Christians." Are you kidding me??? In a wonderful critique of this ridiculous book, one writer states, "Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary." In another critique of Barton's assertions (done by the Baptist Joint Committee For Religious Liberty) Barton is severely chastised for his lack of historical integrity and for his more-than-ridiculous claims. And here is yet another brilliant rebuttal of Barton's falsehoods, which was written in Church and State Magazine in August of 1996.

As an Evangelical Christian, what aggravates me about the religious right (and Barton in particular) is the fact that SERIOUS scholarly inquiry and discovery are completely rejected in the name of "Christian" values. Facts are often distorted, ignored or even altered simply to "fit" a particular agenda or belief. This sentiment of theological arrogance, which is used to trump sincere intellectual inquiry is one of the main reasons why so many in the mainstream community have a problem with the religious right today. If Barton would cease to publish such rubbish, which is blatantly false and biased, perhaps people would feel differently.

This video is a perfect example of Barton's ridiculous "historical" claims:

The Thomas Jefferson Hour

Today is Sunday, which means that millions of Americans across the nation made their way to church this morning. With the early morning sermons prepared, families across the nation praised God in their individual ways, making Sunday a special day for many.

Though I am not a regular churchgoer, I too find Sunday to be a special time in my life. While others are busy listening to sermons, I am busy listening to none other than Thomas Jefferson. That's right folks, Jefferson can be heard loud and clear every Sunday morning across this great nation (in So. Cal where I live, Jefferson can be heard on 89.1 KPRX).

National Public Radio, in conjunction with renowned scholar Clay Jenkins, have combined to create The Thomas Jefferson Hour, which has become a special treat for history nerds across the country. Jenkins, who portrays Jefferson on the program, takes questions, phone calls, and answers emails as if he were the REAL Jefferson (which, I must admit he excels at).

On the website for the program (which can be seen by clicking here) the producers of The Thomas Jefferson Hour give a brief explanation of their intentions. It states:

The Thomas Jefferson Hour® is a weekly radio program dedicated to the search for truth in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, was a man of the Enlightenment, a student of human nature and gentlemanly behavior, and he applied this to his personal life as well as to both the national and world wide challenges he faced during the forming of our nation.

Nationally acclaimed humanities scholar and award winning first person interpreter of Thomas Jefferson, Clay Jenkinson, portrays Jefferson on the program, and he answers listener questions while in the persona of Jefferson--his answers are grounded in the writings and actions of the great man.

Our mission is to generate one-on-one discourse between friends and family members, then to help broaden it to national discourse (replace the 30 second two position only sound bites) about important, and many times sensitive, topics to our country and to our citizens. We do this in a unique and entertaining way—through the voice of our third president Thomas Jefferson.

Our listeners have encouraged us to sprinkle the program lineup with out-of-character programs. The format is one of Clay Jenkinson, the humanities scholar and social commentator, examining a current or historical event using both a Jeffersonian lens and a modern-day humanities lens. The gift we bring to both program formats is the ability to help people strip through the advertised message and look for the truth of the situation. The truth may be painful and self-revealing, but it is always uplifting to the spirit.

The Thomas Jefferson Hour® appeals to Public Radio listeners, not just history buffs. While some of our primary stations are in historical areas (Norfolk and Radford, Virginia) or areas that are Jeffersonian (North Dakota, Kansas, Texas), our largest listening audience occurs in postmodern regions such as Fresno, California and Colorado Springs, Colorado. Our appeal truly is our ability to bring out the truth in a non-dramatic, unthreatening manner then to help our audience think through the complexity of the decision making process, bringing clarity to the steps and the events.

For all you early American buffs, I encourage you to check out the website, where all of the local affiliates are listed, along with the program's schedule. Even if you are not a history nut, The Thomas Jefferson Hour is an enjoyable program for everyone!

Check it out!

The Decline of Jefferson/Rise of Adams

Over the past few years, I can't help but take not of the fact that there seems to have been a major shift in the way both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams have been perceived. Obviously the hit HBO drama on the life of John Adams has done much to bolster this one time self-defeating founder. As Adams himself put it, "History will remember very little of me...I will have no monuments."

While it is true that John Adams was once considered a "lesser" of the Founding Fathers, recent events and research have propelled Adams to a higher level of recognition and appreciation. On the flip side, the once prominent Thomas Jefferson has witnessed a decrease in his popularity. The man who was once hailed as the greatest political mind of his era is now being remembered more for his views on religion and slavery. Jefferson's lack of Christian orthodoxy, combined with his views on slavery (not to mention the huge impact of the Sally Hemmings affair) have caused Jefferson to slip a little.

Is this fair? Should we promote Adams at the expense of Jefferson?

If there is one thing I've learned from these two men it's that they are virtually polar opposites from one another. When we compare Adams and Jefferson, we are often comparing North v. South, Puritan v. Anglican, Federalist v. Republican, aristocrat v. farmer, passionate v. reserved. I guess it would only be natural for one man's stock to go down as the other's went up. With that said, however, I feel that both men deserve to be judged not against one another, but solely on their own merits.

Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?

Though we've discussed this before, I discovered some new evidence and thought it would be fun to bring this topic up yet again.

Nearly every American has seen this painting. In fact, it has become one of the best selling pieces of art in recent years. Thousands of homes, churches, office buildings, etc. have adorned their walls with this extremely powerful portrayal of America's first president kneeling in prayer. As is common with the legacy of our Founding Fathers, Americans today gain a sense of pride, reverence, and even patriotism when witnessing poignant recreations such as this painting.

But how accurate is it? Did Washington really pray at Valley Forge?

Officially known as The Prayer at Valley Forge, artist Arnold Friberg chose to capture what he called, "The spirit of 1776" by painting this picture for the American bicentennial festivities of 1976. Since then, Friberg's painting has become one of the top selling pieces of American art and has inspired a countless number of "copycat" artists, who have capitalized on creating similar pieces of art. The painting has also become a source of controversy between Christian conservatives and secularists, who seem to be caught up in a constant battle over America's founding legacy.

So what are the facts surrounding the "Prayer at Valley Forge?"

The original story of George Washington kneeling in prayer comes from a source that is questionable to say the least. The story allegedly originated from a young man named Isaac Potts, who is the supposed eyewitness to this event. It is said that Potts was riding along one day when he came across General Washington, hidden in the woods and caught up in deep prayer. Potts, who was originally against the war, stated that he experienced a change of heart upon seeing the General in prayer. The story then went unreported for roughly 40 years until Potts allegedly revealed his experience to his pastor, Reverend Nathaniel Snowden. Reverend Snowden then purportedly copied what Potts had told him in his journal, in the hopes that the story would be protected for posterity. Here is an excerpt from Snowden's journal:

I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world.

Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying. I went home & told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what I never saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had seen & heard & observed. We never thought a man c’d be a soldier & a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. She also was astonished. We thought it was the cause of God, & America could prevail.

The powerful imagery of General Washington beseeching God to bless and protect his army is moving to say the least. The problem with the story, however, is that there is little to no proof of its veracity. First off, it is highly unlikely that Reverend Snowden ever knew or associated with Isaac Potts. Family history records have proven that the Potts family did not move to the Valley Forge area until 1800 (Washington was dead by then). Also, it is worth noting that Reverend Snowden's journal account records the name of Potts's wife to be Sarah, when in fact her name was Martha. In addition, Snowden's journal states that he heard the story from a man named "John," not Isaac Potts. Simply put, Reverend Snowden's journal is too unreliable to support the Valley Forge story.

Along with the questionable journal entries, it is worth noting that Isaac Potts never had a change of heart when it came to the war. In addition, several critics of Snowden claimed that the Reverend recanted his story when presented with the evidence.

So why would Snowden lie?

It is a known fact that a number of religious leaders from several different churches attempted to "claim" George Washington as their own. After all, Washington was a living legend in his time. To have the religious endorsement of America's general and first president would be extremely impressive in the eyes of the common citizenry. As a result, scores of religious leaders of the 18th century have distorted the true nature of Washington's faith.

While it is true that Washington was known for attending church with some regularity, and that he held organized religion "in high regard," it is important to recognize the fact that Washington was far from being an orthodox believer. First off, though Washington attended several religious services over the course of his life, he refused to be confirmed a member of any one denomination. Washington strongly opposed an orthodox allegiance in religious affairs (as he did in political affairs as well). It is also an established fact that Washington refused to take communion of any kind when attending church services. In fact, a number of religious leaders expressed disappointment at the fact that Washington would not participate in communion. During communion, it was common of Washington to simply walk out of church in the middle of the ceremony.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Valley Forge painting is the simple fact that George Washington refused to pray on his knees. Historians and biographers of Washington have pointed out the fact that Washington would choose to stand instead of kneel when praying. In fact, Washington made it clear to his military advisers that he detested anything that brought a man to his knees.

Despite these facts, the "Prayer of Valley Forge" has received incredible publicity and attention over the years. In 1866, artist John McRae was commissioned by the United States to create an engraving of this event.

Later, the Valley Forge Park Commission was given a grant to create a statue of McRae's engraving, which was to be placed at the entrance to Valley Forge Park. The Park authorities refused, stating that there was ample evidence to suggest that the Washington prayer story was a hoax. Despite the decision of park authorities, tours were conducted until roughly 1930, which took travelers to various locations where Washington had allegedly knelt in prayer.

Despite your personal feelings, the Prayer at Valley Forgehas become an important symbol for millions of Americans. Even though the story behind the painting is an utter fraud, it is important to recognize the fact that Washington was, in the end, a man of prayer. As a revolutionary leader it would be natural for a man of Washington's status to refuse kneeling in prayer. Though not an orthodox follower of Christianity, Washington should be remembered as religious individual.