A Bit More on America's Historical Amnesia

I am currently reading a book by Susan Jacoby entitled, The Age of American Unreason (which, by the way, I would reccommend to you all), which deals primarily with America's lack of historical knowledge and its apathy towards sincere learning. I bring this up on our blog because one of the central claims in her books is that the ideals of the 18th century Enlightenment have been replaced with modern ignorance and narcissism, which she claims is self-inflicted. In her introduction, Jacoby writes:

During the past four decades, America's endemic anti-intellectual tendencies have been grievously exacerbated by a new species of semiconscious anti-rationalism, feeding on and fed by an ignorant popular culture of video images and unremitting noise that leaves no room for contemplation or logic. This new form of anti-rationalism, at odds not only with the nation's heritage of eighteenth-century Enlightenment reason but with modern scientific knowledge, has propelled a surge of anti-intellectualism capable of inflicting vastly greater damage than its historical predecessors inflicted on American culture and politics.

Jacoby then goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson, who stated "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Jacoby's claims, comined with what we have discussed earlier, have caused me to wonder if our post-modern civilization is better off than that of our 18th century ancestors. Is it possible that we have actually lost more than we've gained? Is this problem of America's collective "amnesia" really that serious, or are we just blowing things out of proportion?

Your thoughts...

Conclusion of John Adams

The conclusion of HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams took place last night with its 7th and final installment. Last night's episode, entitled "Peacefield," covered the history of John & Abigail Adams during their retirement years. Yet again, HBO did a remarkable job of personalizing the history. The portrayal of Nabby's breast removal and her subsequent death, along with the portrayal of the death of Abigail Adams were stirring scenes, which gave the audience an intimate view of the "humanity" of these characters. I commend HBO for successfully bringing a human element into the equation. The study of history can often neglect the human reality of the past.

With that said, I would like to mention a few of my overall impressions of the miniseries.

The "Good Stuff"
1.) As mentioned above, HBO brought a human element to the history, and did so in a very effective manner.
2.) The miniseries did a great job of eliminating many of the myths that surround our nation's founding. For example, the Founding Fathers regularly disagreed, and often disliked one another. The establishment of the United States was anything but a smooth and unanimous consensus. This miniseries brings this to light.
3.) The recreation of the various cities, homes, clothing, etc. was well-researched and very accurate. The viewer gained as genuine a recreation of colonial America that is humanly possible.

The "Wrong Stuff"
1.) I realize that I have mentioned this on numerous occasions, but I absolutely detest the fact that this miniseries "skims" across the surface of the history of this time period. There is little to no "deep" history that is developed throughout the story. I also feel that HBO cruised through roughly 60 years of history in the blink of an eye. Essentially, I am saying that HBO bit off more than it could chew. I think the series would have been better if HBO had chosen to focus on a specific time period (say, the war period of 1775-1783, or the Washington/Adams presidencies) instead of breezing through the entire life of John Adams. There simply was not enough time to do all of that history justice.

2.) HBO seemed to "overplay" the role of John Adams in many instances. Don't get me wrong, I realize that Adams is of paramount importance to the American Revolution. I also recognize the fact that this is a miniseries devoted to Adams specifically. With that said, I still feel that there could have been more time devoted to the war itself, along with the important contributions that were made by Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. I was disappointed to see that the contributions of these men were essentially omitted from the storyline.

In conclusion, I think HBO did justice to a story that is almost completely ignored by the movie and television industry. It is wonderful that the story of the American Revolution was finally attempted by the film industry. Kudos to Tom Hanks & Co. for going out on a limb and pulling it off!

My overall grade for the miniseries: B+

The award for best performance: Laura Linney for her portrayal of Abigail Adams. I thought it was spot on!

The award for best episode: Episode #2 (Independence).

The award for best scene: The death of Abigail Adams. It was extremely powerful and brought home the reality of her death and its impact on John Adams. We watched these two characters over 7 weeks, and to see her die was a powerful moment in the series. I almost felt like I was there!

Was Lexington and Concord the Beginning?

On this day in 1775, the British Army under the command of Lt. Colonel Francis Smith ordered his army of some 700+ to attack and seize the colonial armaments being stored at Concord. In response, the Boston Minutemen rallied in defence of their "nation," claiming that the British had finally crossed the proverbial line in the sand. The brave rabble of American militiamen who bravely stood against the British have been hailed for their bravery as they stood against the might of the British Army. As Ralph Waldo Emerson stated in his epic poem that has forever immortalized this battle:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

Though nobody can doubt the boldness of this British advancement, several historians have begun to question whether or not the battles of Lexington & Concord have received too much attention and credit. While nobody will deny that the battle was both vicious and brave for the colonials, one has to question why this battle is given the unique distinction as being the "beginning battle" to the American Revolution.

First off, I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to discredit the heroism or significance of the Battle of Lexington & Concord. Instead, I believe that we should strive to put it into the context in the manner that its contemporaries understood it. By doing so, we can learn and appreciate the TRUE nature and importance of this battle.

As far as our Founding Fathers were concerned, the Battle of Lexington and Concord was but another British atrocity that demanded a response. The measure and severity of that response, however, was a topic of great debate between the several delegates to the Continental Congress. Understandably, the Massachusetts delegates demanded war, while many others demanded a peaceful response. War was never officially declared by the Congress, though they did manage to officially appoint George Washington to be the General of the newly established Continental Army. This, however, came AFTER the battle.

It is also important to note that very few of Massachusetts's sister colonies were making preparations for war. As far as they saw it, peace was still very much a possibility and hope. There was also no official declaration for independence, nor any new form of government established. Clearly, our Founding Fathers understood the atrocity of Lexington and Concord to be a serious problem, but not necessarily an act of war.

Flags of the Revolution

If you've been watching HBO's hit miniseries, John Adams, chances are you have noticed the assortment of flags during its opening credits. One of the neat things about the American Revolution is the fact that the colonists created and flew a number of banners, which are now used to commemorate specific events in this all-important era of American history. Unfortunately, the majority of these flags are unknown to the American public today. It's a shame because these flags provide an interesting insight into the history of the American Revolution, which is why I think they are worthy of recognition. With this in mind, here are a handful of America's earliest flags:

The first flag portrayed in the opening credits is the "Join or Die" banner. This flag, which has its origins in the French and Indian War and not the American Revolution, was actually derived from none other than Benjamin Franklin. Franklin designed the flag to suggest that unity between the British colonies was essential in securing a British victory over the French. For obvious reasons, the banner was brought back during the American Revolution. Here is a link to a previous posting on Franklin's "Join or Die" slogan.

Another flag that has received a lot of attention is the "Appeal to Heaven" flag. This flag's origin is also before the American Revolution. Settlers in Massachusetts used the green tree as a symbol of peace roughly 100 years before the American Revolution. When war broke out, the flag was naturally adopted as a rallying banner for their cause. General George Washington even adopted the flag and used it as the official banner for his navy (a navy he funded himself). Here is a link to an older posting on this flag.

The British Ensign was the official banner of the British Navy, and was flown at every major seaport within the empire. Many historians speculate that this flag's design was the inspiration for the design of the current United States flag.

The "Sons of Liberty" flag as it was commonly called by the Americans was created in 1765 during the protests over the Stamp Act. The flag's nine stripes represent the nine colonies that stood in defiance to Great Britain. Interestingly enough, the flag became known in Great Britain as, "The Rebellious Stripes." Naturally, the flag had to be retired and replaced once the remaining four colonies joined in open rebellion to Britain. In the John Adams miniseries, this flag can be seen in various scenes that include Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty.

The yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag (officially known as the Gadsden Flag) is arguably the most famous and popular flag of the American Revolution. This flag was presented to the Continental Congress by South Carolinian Christopher Gadsden. The flag was used for a time by the Continental Navy, but was later replaced. The interesting thing about the Gadsden Flag is that it provides us with an insight into the popularity of the rattlesnake in colonial America. During this era, many Americans embraced the myth that a rattlesnake, if chopped into pieces, would come back to life if the snake were buried before sundown. This is why Benjamin Franklin's "Join or Die" snake was so popular. The idea of national unity when combined with snake folklore was a powerful symbol. In fact, the rattlesnake was so popular that it was seriously considered for the national emblem. Benjamin Franklin became its most ardent proponent, claiming that the rattlesnake would make the perfect symbol of the new American republic. Te reasons for embracing the rattlesnake as the national emblem were:

*The rattlesnake has no eyelids and is therefore eternally vigilant.
*Colonial Americans believed that the rattlesnake would never attack first, and that it never retreated from a fight.
*Colonial American society believed that a rattlesnake never slept, suggesting that the animal never tired.
*The rattlesnake is indigenous to North America

Benjamin Franklin was so passionate about making the rattlesnake the national emblem that he adorned his home with the Gadsden Flag. When the eagle was finally accepted as the new national emblem, Franklin protested by proclaiming the eagle, "a despicable vulture of the sky."

The "Grand Union Flag," which is often considered by historians to be the first "official" American flag, was used between 1775 and 1777. The flag was an adaptation of the British Naval flag, which was altered by the inclusion of the thirteen alternating red and white stripes (which represented the thirteen colonies). The flag kept the original red cross of St. George and white cross of St. Andrew, which represented American devotion to Great Britain. It is important to remember that in 1775 the majority of American colonists were still opposed to a complete break with Britain. This flag symbolizes their hope for reconciliation and loyalty to the motherland.

This was the personal flag of General George Washington during the American Revolution. As strange as it may sound today, generals carried flags into battle for identification. This allowed couriers and other staff to be able to locate the general on the battlefield. This flag always accompanied George Washington and his "life guard" (a select group of men that served as Washington's security detail). This flag can be seen in HBO's John Adams series when the General makes a stop at the home of Abigail Adams and during the siege of Boston from Dorchester Heights.

As the British commenced their attack up Breed's Hill on the morning of June 17, 1775, this flag could be seen flying from the top of nearby Bunker Hill. This flag would forever commemorate that encounter and give Bunker Hill the distinction over Breed's Hill (where the fighting actually took place).

This flag, which is known as the American Naval Jack, was flown on several American naval ships during the American Revolution. The current United States Navy is still using this flag. In fact, it is tradition that the ship with the longest total period of active service be given the distinction of flying this flag. Currently the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk carries this distinction. It is also worth noting that the Secretary of the Navy ordered all Navy vessels to fly this Navy Jack for the duration of the war on terrorism. Here is an interesting link for more information on the Navy Jack.

This flag, which is often referred to as the "Vermont Flag" or the "Green Mountain" flag was first flown by Ethan Allen during his raid of Fort Ticonderoga. The flag was later adopted as the official flag of the Republic of Vermont, since Vermont did not join the union until 1791.

Of course we cannot forget the legendary "Betsy Ross" flag. Though its origins are a source of intense historical debate (click here for more on the Betsy Ross flag), the banner has remained a traditional emblem of the American Revolution. The "Betsy Ross" flag was used by the army, while the flag to the right was the most widely accepted and distributed flag of the infant United States during the yearly years of the republic


Some other interesting flags of early American history:
The earliest known Viking flag, which depicts a raven. Ravens were important birds for the earliest seafaring voyages, since they naturally flew in the direction of land. It is thought that the Vikings under Leif Ericson could have flown this flag during their voyages around the American coast.

This was the flag carried by Christopher Columbus to the "New World." The flag represents the rule of King Ferdinand and Isabel (in Spanish spelled Ysabel). Upon his arrival, Columbus is said to have posted this flag as an act of claiming the lands for the Spanish crown.

This flag represented England as far back as the Crusades. It also accompanied John Cabot during his exploration of the American coast, and was carried by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower in 1620.

You could make the argument that this is the first flag of New York. Known as the Dutch East India Flag, this banner flew proudly over the Dutch fortresses of New Amsterdam (the "A" in the flag represents Amsterdam, the motherland's capital). It would take several years before the city of New Amsterdam would fall to the British and be renamed New York.

2008 Pulitzer Prize Winner

The 2008 winners of the Pulitzer Prize were announced to the public yesterday, and though this year's winner in the history category is not a historian of the American Revolution, I still believe that his book is worth mentioning here. Historian Daniel Walker Howe is this year's recipient for his work, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. In recent years, Howe has become one of the foremost historians of the Jacksonian Era, which is essentially an extension of the American Revolutionary era. You could easily make the claim that the study of the American Revolution extends into the early parts of the 19th century, which would make Howe's work a valuable resource for those that are interested in this time period.

Howe's book was published by Oxford University and is part of the Oxford series on American history (which is arguably the most respected multi-volume series of American history ever published). Mark Noll, one of the most respected religious scholars of our day, stated that Howe's book is, "probably the most culturally sensitive political history as well as the best politically informed social history ever written for this transformative period in American history." The publishers for Oxford University had this to say about Howe's breakthrough work:

The Oxford History of the United States is by far the most respected multi-volume history of our nation. The series includes two Pulitzer Prize winners, two New York Times bestsellers, and winners of the Bancroft and Parkman Prizes. Now, in What Hath God Wrought, historian Daniel Walker Howe illuminates the period from the Battle of New Orleans to the end of the Mexican-American War, an era when the United States expanded to the Pacific and won control over the richest part of the North American continent.

Howe's panoramic narrative portrays revolutionary improvements in transportation and communications that accelerated the extension of the American empire. Railroads, canals, newspapers, and the telegraph dramatically lowered travel times and spurred the spread of information. These innovations prompted the emergence of mass political parties and stimulated America's economic development from an overwhelmingly rural country to a diversified economy in which commerce and industry took their place alongside agriculture. In his story, the author weaves together political and military events with social, economic, and cultural history. He examines the rise of Andrew Jackson and his Democratic party, but contends that John Quincy Adams and other Whigs — advocates of public education and economic integration, defenders of the rights of Indians, women, and African-Americans — were the true prophets of America's future. He reveals the power of religion to shape many aspects of American life during this period, including slavery and antislavery, women's rights and other reform movements, politics, education, and literature. Howe's story of American expansion culminates in the bitterly controversial but brilliantly executed war waged against Mexico to gain California and Texas for the United States.

By 1848 America had been transformed. What Hath God Wrought provides a monumental narrative of this formative period in United States history.

Though lengthy in his prose, Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought is, without question, a must-read for those interested in the history and development of early America. The book deserves a resounding five stars!

The United States of Amnesia: America's Historical Illiteracy

I've been wanting to bring up this topic for a long time but decided not to, being that this blog is dedicated primarily to the history of the American Revolution. After recent events, however, I have had a change of heart. While this posting may not have a lot to do with the American Revolution in particular, it does have a great deal to do with the study of history in general. I hope you will all take the time to read this posting because I believe it is an issue of supreme significance to us all.

A recent survey conducted by the Nation's Report Card 2001: U.S. History indicated that more than half of American high school seniors lack a "basic" understanding of American history ("basic" meaning questions like "What was the Holocaust," and, "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?"). To make matters worse, a 2003 Roper Survey of Americans found that only 38% of Adults and 53% of students knew the meaning of the word Holocaust. Another 68% of Americans were unable to name at least three signers of the Constitution. In Diane Ravitch and Chester Finn's 1997 report, What Do Our 17-Year Olds Know?: A Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature, it was found that the answer was little: One out of five students thought Watergate occurred before 1900 and only one-third could place the Civil War within the correct half-century (click here for a link to these sources).

In an excellent piece written for the National Review, William J. Bennett points out the fact that current high school and college students are performing far worse in American history than in reading or math. Bennett continues his argument by alluding to the fact that funding for historical education is virtually non-existent, and that current historical resources are both outdated and biased:

Many of our history books are either too tendentious — disseminating a one-sided, politically correct view of the history of the greatest nation that ever existed; or, worse, they are boring — providing a watered down, anemic version of a people who have fought wars at home and abroad for the purposes of liberty and equality, conquered deadly diseases, and placed men on the moon...What a shame that great men and women like George Washington, Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Amelia Earhart, Jesse Owens, Martin Luther King Jr, and so many others should be consigned to brief mentions only, and then to the sighs of uninterested study. Their stories are just not told.

Historian David McCullough, who in recent years has become the most outspoken proponent for the advancement of historical education, has stated on numerous occasions that we are facing the prospect of national amnesia. “Amnesia of society is just as detrimental as amnesia for the individual. We are running a terrible risk. Our very freedom depends on education, and we are failing our children in not providing that education.” McCullough also adds that we cannot single out our youth exclusively, but that we should take note of the historical ignorance of the Adult population as well. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans obtain their historical knowledge from Hollywood, The History Channel, and other forms of pop culture, McCullough suggests that we are facing a crisis of national identity.

Skeptics within the education community insist that the study of history carries less importance in the modern world than do topics such as math, science and computers. In fact the Department of Education for the State of California has determined that the study of American history should emphasize more "relevant" issues. As a result, California is currently phasing out its American Revolution and Civil War curriculums, claiming that they are of less importance to the "modern" student. In fact, the overwhelming majority of high school students nationwide are required to take only 2 semesters of history in order to graduate. Since history is included in the larger genre of Social Studies, less emphasis is placed on its importance. At the college level, history classes and professors are but a small part of what most universities call, The Department of Humanities. As a result, most college student are able to breeze through their collegiate careers without ever being required to take a single course of history.

I find it both strange and hypocritical that the study of history has become a mere subcategory in the larger arenas of Social Studies and Humanities. After all, Math, Science, English, etc. are still esteemed as unique and separate fields of study. So why not history? Historian George Lipsitz sums up this historical crisis best when he writes:

The crisis in historical thinking is certainly real. The dislocations of the past two centuries, the propaganda apparatuses of totalitarian powers, disillusionment with the paradigms of the Enlightenment, and popular culture itself have all served to make the search for a precious and communicable past one of the most pressing problems of our time.

I for one find it amazing that Americans are so quick to profess their love, admiration and patriotism for this nation, yet remain ignorant of its history and development. In many ways, this phenomenon is similar to the professing Christian that knows little or nothing about his/her religion's doctrine. How can one profess loyalty or patriotism to a nation or cause if he/she knows nothing of its history? As Cicero stated so many years ago, "History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity...one cannot become a true citizen without first gaining an understanding of history."

In a series of seminars, historian David McCullough has stressed the "historical crisis" that this nation currently faces. His words are far better than mine, so I will conclude by attaching a few of McCullough's video clips. I hope you will enjoy.


Part 2:

HBO's John Adams: Episode 5

Episode #5, "Unite or Die" is in the books! As hard as it may be to believe, HBO's hit miniseries John Adams has almost reached its conclusion. I guess that the old saying, "all good things must come to an end" is true after all. It has been an absolute joy to not only watch this miniseries, but to engage in a meaningful discussion on the film's historical accuracies/inaccuracies with all of you. Speaking for myself, the series has become quite the learning experience, thanks in large part to your input.

Like most of you, I watched episode #5 last night with great anticipation. Going into this week's episode I knew that the miniseries would be covering the early years of the American republic, which is a time period I greatly enjoy learning about. Overall, I think that HBO did an excellent job at capturing the true nature on America's infant years as a republic. The series brought out the convoluted nature of America's political atmosphere, which eventually drove a rift between many of our Founding Fathers. Episode #5 also helped to put a personal spin on the Adams family's domestic quarrels, which were anything but peaceful.

I only have a few critiques of this week's installment. Most of them center on the portrayal of various political issues that came up in episode #5. First off, I want to YET AGAIN stress the fact that this miniseries is only skimming the historical surface of the American Revolution. It is impossible to give a detailed portrayal of George Washington's eight-year administration in only one hour. I lament the fact that so many viewers will miss so much history that is critical in gaining an understanding of the early American republic.

My main problem with last night's episode centers on its depiction of the Jay Treaty. There can be no doubt that the French/British conflict propelled the infant United States into a very difficult dilemma. There is also no doubt that a large part of the American population favored an alliance with France, and that the announcement of the Jay Treaty angered many across the continent. With that said, however, it is also important to remember that a large part of the nation defended Washington's decision to make a treaty with Britain. HBO's portrayal of George Washington being hated by the masses is grossly overdone. Of course there were protests against Washington for the Jay Treaty, but there were also protests against France as well. As historian James Sharp points out in his book, American Politics in the Early Republic, "The treaty that Jay negotiated, and that Washington sent to the Senate divided the country like no other issue in the history of the young republic." Washington's decision was controversial to say the least, but it did not cause the majority of Americans to hate him (as is suggested in the film).

In fact, Washington's decision to accept a treaty with Britain was an ingenious move to say the least. As Joseph Ellis writes in his book, Founding Brothers:

It bet, in effect, on England rather than France as the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic. It recognized the massive dependence of the American economy on trade with England…it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century. Mostly, it postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one.

Washington's decision to avoid war at all costs and to align America's economic future with England instead of France was arguably the most important decision of his presidency.

In addition, it would have been a huge plus if the miniseries did a better job of portraying George Washington's departure from the presidency as the illustrious event that it was. Washington's ability to willingly give up power set a precedence that no president dared to break in almost 200 years. That was an event that deserved more attention.

Another historical event that could have used further development was Alexander Hamilton's plan of economic assumption. The miniseries only devotes a small segment to this all-important issue. In fact, Hamilton seems to be somewhat demonized in the film's portrayal of his economic policies. We would be wise, however, to remember that Alexander Hamilton's plan of assumption did more to set America on the road to prosperity than any other act of government policy.

Martin Luther King: Remembering 40 Years

I realize that this blog is about the American Revolution, but I thought this posting would be appropriate. In many ways, the story of Martin Luther King is a story of America's founding, since he did so much to help fulfill its true meaning.

Forty years ago on this day, Martin Luther King was shot and killed outside of his hotel room in Memphis, Tennessee. He was 39 years old. King's assassination, which is deeply clouded in controversy, became a major turning point in the American Civil Right's movement. In 1964, King was instrumental in lobbying for the passage of the Civil Right's Act, but the act was still greatly unpopular across the American landscape. King's death marked a change in sentiment that propelled the Civil Right's Act to the forefront of American affairs. As King biographer Taylor Branch has appropriately stated, "Marin Luther King has done more to fulfill the legacy of America's founding than any other man...he's a modern equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

Ron Chernow's Newest Project

The highly acclaimed historian/biographer, Ron Chernow, has announced his newest project. Chernow has decided to write an unprecedented biography of George Washington, which should be one of the most comprehensive biographies of "the father of America" ever written. With the impending completion of the Papers of George Washington, to which Chernow has been given unprecedented access, this book will be one to remember.

Chernow is best known for his biography of Alexander Hamilton, which is arguably the most comprehensive biography ever written on the man. Chernow is very well-known and respected for his detail-oriented approach to writing. "Chernow spares no expence and cut not corners when it comes to his research," stated David McCullough. "When it comes to the nitty-gritty of doing research, nobody is better than Ron [Chernow]."

The date for this soon-to-be masterpiece is still yet to be determined (which is common of Chernow, due to his intense research style). I for one am willing to wait. If this book is anything like Alexander Hamilton, the wait will be well worth it!

American Revolution v. French Revolution

The eighteenth-century was a time of wide-spread enlightenment and phenomenal political advancement. To be certain, the culminating events of that century were the American and French Revolutions. Both saw the overthrow of traditional monarchical rule, followed by the establishment of republican law. But which revolution had the bigger impact?

To be certain, both citizens of America and France defend their respective revolution as being most important, and with good reason. I don't expect Americans in today's society to proclaim the French Revolution as more important to world history, nor do I expect the French to think of America's revolution in the same light either. The growth of nationalism in the 20th century would make such an inquiry virtually impossible.

Instead, I would like us to understand these revolutions from the perspective of the participants. If we were to travel back in time to 1789, there can be NO QUESTION that the citizens of America and France (along with most of Europe) would be hailing the French Revolution as THE MOST IMPORTANT movement of their era. Virtually nobody would think to include the Constitutional Convention in such an argument. After all, America was a frontier nation, not the sophisticated world of France!

With this said, however, as the French Revolution wore on, more and more Americans began to see the American Revolution through a different lens. As the events of "The Terror" and other violent outbreaks began to ravage the French countryside, the differences between the motivating factors for revolution in America v. France became much more clear. As one historian put it:

Unlike the American Revolution, whose philosophical ancestors were the English liberals, the French Revolution was fundamentally fathered by the French radical philosophers, especially Jean Jacques Rousseau, and inherited the faith in reason engendered by The Enlightenment. RenŽ Descartes' trust in geometric like reasoning and Rousseau's belief in the common will and sovereignty of the people framed the conception guiding the French Revolution. This conception is mechanical. Government is a machine, fueled by coercive power, and driven by reason; and its destination is Social Justice. Government is thus a tool to reach a future goal -- improving man. Those in charge of the State would therefore use reason to apply government to further and create Social Justice.

This conception is clearly different from that of the American revolutionaries. For the Americans, interests were the guiding force; for the French, reason. For the Americans, Freedom was to be preserved against the State; for the French, the State was used by reason to achieve Social Justice. For the Americans, individual rights were essential to protect interests; for the French, the collective, the sovereignty of the people, the general will stood above rights. Finally, for the Americans, no one interest could be entrusted with the State -- all interests had to be limited and balanced by their opposition; for the French, the State was a tool that should have no limit so long as Social Justice was pursued according to the common will.

Despite the motivations for instigating revolution, there can be no mistaking the fact that these two revolutions, both of extreme importance to world history, had very different conceptions.

Review of John Adams: Episode #4

Here is yet another installment in the saga that is John Adams. After last week's lackluster episode, which fell dramatically short of the excitement exhibited in episodes #1 & #2, I was hoping and praying that the series would return to its roots. Though episode #4 (entitled "Reunion") was still somewhat slow and even a little boring, I have to give kudos to HBO for bringing a personal element of the Adams Family to life. Regardless of all the letters between the couple, no historian could portray the longing and affection that was shared between John and Abigail Adams. Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney's performances in this regard were outstanding (in my opinion). Their ability to recreate the reunion of the couple was very impressive.

I was also intrigued by how the series portrayed the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and the Adams Family. Again, I think HBO did an excellent job in this regard. John and Abigail's trip to Britain was also very well-done.

As I have stated so many times, my main problem with this whole miniseries has been the fact that it moves far too quickly, and as a result, too much history is omitted in the process. I wish that HBO would have focused on a particular part of the Adams story instead of skimming the historical surface of his life. I also found myself somewhat disappointed with the depiction of George Washington's inauguration. Don't get me wrong, it was very powerful, but I wish that the scene would have been better developed. I felt like it was simply thrown together. Again, it must be that the history is moving way too fast. With all that said, however, I must admit that I am thoroughly enjoying HBO's production. Special kudos to Laura Linney in her portrayal of Abigail Adams. I think she has been spot on throughout the film.

Founders Religion in Modern Politics: Why Conservatives and Liberals Get it so Very Wrong

Will all of the political talk about Obama's religion, along with the role of faith in the halls of government that seems to be infesting the "blogosphere," I thought it might be fun to engage in a discussion about how the religion of the Founding Fathers has become a political platform of sorts. No matter where you turn these days, it is virtually impossible to avoid the onslaught of Democrat and Republican politics. Both parties have invested a great deal of assets in this year's election in an effort to ensure their party's triumph. Political rhetoric seems to saturate the airwaves with promises of reform and change coming from the rival political camps.

Of all the arguments that seem to complicate this year's election, religion is at or near the top. Whether it comes in the form of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Mike Huckabee's Evangelical beliefs, or allegations of Barack Obama's ties to Islam and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the religion of our candidates has taken center stage. To further complicate this messy conglomeration of religious fervor, both the Democrats and Republicans have chosen to passionately invoke the memory of our Founding Fathers to bolster support for their respective causes. From Mike Huckabee's assertion that the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen, to Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech, this season's crop of presidential hopefuls have fully embraced the time-honored tradition of "piggybacking" the memory of the Founding Fathers with their individualistic political agendas.

This is, of course, nothing new to the world of politics. Over the centuries virtually every politician has appealed to the legacy of the Founding Fathers to rally support. What has changed, however, is the fanatical desire to polarize the religious sentiments of the Founding Fathers. These extremist views between the secularism of most liberals and the Christian zeal of most conservatives has created opposing doctrines on how religion influenced America's founding. As Steven Waldman point out in his new book Founding Faith:

In battles over prayer in school, courtroom displays of the Ten Commandments, and other emotional issues, both sides follow a well-worn script: 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.

Waldman's bold statements are virtually echoed by those of author John Meacham, who writes in his book American Gospel the following:

Both sides feel they are fighting for the survival of what's best for America: liberals for openness and expanding rights, conservatives for a God-fearing, morally coherent culture...The conservative right's contention that we are a "Christian nation" that has fallen from pure origins and can achieve redemption by some kind of return to Christian values is based on wishful thinking, not convincing historical argument...the secularist arrogance that religion played no role in America's founding is equally ridiculous.

So where does this leave us? Despite all of the "historical" arguments of the Democrats and Republicans, we can conclude three truths about the role of religion in the lives of the Founding Fathers, and its influence on America's founding:

1.) The Founding Fathers were religious individuals, in the sense that they believed in a "divine Providence," which oversaw and assisted in the efforts of mankind. Very few can or should be classified as Atheist. In one form or another, the majority believed in a higher power.

2.) The "Major" Founders (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton) had a strong distrust of organized religion. The Founders were more than aware of the religious atrocities that had occurred in the colonies (the Salem Witch Trials were still fresh in the minds of almost everyone). The ideology and doctrine of the Enlightenment, though not opposed to religion, did convince many within colonial society that an individual did not need organized religion to commune with deity.

3.) The United States of America was NOT created as a CHRISTIAN nation. Though this is often an offensive statement to many Christians, I would remind them that America's greatness comes from its liberties and diversity. We accept and embrace ALL religions, not just Christianity. Though the Founders embraced Christian ideals, this does not suggest that they created a Christian nation. As John Adams himself stated, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Though this argument is likely to continue for many years to come, perhaps some sense of it could be made by merely taking a trip to Washington D.C. There you will find the Washington Monument (built in the style of the Egyptian Obelisk). Egypt, as we all know was hardly a Christian nation. Then there is the United States Supreme Court building, which is build after the manner of the Greek Parthenon (Greece, as we all know, was a deeply pagan society at the time of the Parthenon). The Supreme Court building is also adorned with an elegant statue of Moses (which, of course, has angered many secularists). Perhaps the secularists should give the statue a further examination, for they will find that Moses is accompanied by a statue of Confucius (the great Chinese philosopher) and Solon (the great Athenian poet, statesman and leader in early Greece). Inside the Supreme Court building you are also likely to see the pagan statues of Britannia and Mars. Again, the Founding Fathers sought to create a nation where we would embrace and accept ALL beliefs.


This "Temple of Justice" as it was called, has become a symbol of America's religious diversity, which is one of its greatest strengths. It would do both the conservatives and liberals a great deal of good to remember these truths before making their partisan claims. After all, only damage can come from distorting history to fit one's agenda. As John Meacham states, "If totalitarianism was the great problem of the twentieth century, then extremism is, so far, the great problem of the twenty-first."

Informal Overview of Joyce Appleby's Recollections of the Early Republic

Since I currently have no major reading assignments in any of my classes, I have enjoyed the freedom of being able to read books of my own choosing (which is a rarity at the graduate level). Anyway one of the books that I just finished is an excellent mix of both primary and secondary source material on the early American republic. Joyce Appleby's Recollections of the Early Republic uses some of the best material available to demonstrate the convoluted nature of the early republic, not to mention the diverse opinions of its participants. Since the majority of the book consists of first hand accounts from the time period, the reader gets a personal view and not just a historical analysis.

The thing that struck me most about this book is the fact that so many people in early America, from diverse backgrounds, had many different views of the American Revolution. There was hardly a consensus amongst the people. The book gives a voice to so many of the traditional subalterns that are ignored in early American historiography.

For anyone that has succumbed to the delusion that the American Revolution was a unified movement, I would strongly recommend this book. The words of the actual people that lived the revolution will change your mind.

Washington Orders Inoculation

One of the most stirring scenes in HBO's new miniseries John Adams is the inoculation of Abigail and her children. Instead of today's modern inoculation methods (which still cause many to squirm and even pass out), colonial inoculation was much more barbaric. The process involved the cutting of the flesh accompanied by the introduction of the smallpox virus. As can be imagined, many within the colonial community saw inoculation as an insane method of treatment. There were even debates amongst medical practitioners as to its effectiveness.

What most people don't know when it comes to inoculation during this time period is that General George Washington actually ordered the soldiers of the Continental Army to be inoculated. Washington was a strong supporter of inoculation, believing that the medical procedure would greatly reduce the chances of infection. Though the procedure had many skeptics, Washington firmly believed that the benefits of inoculation far outweighed the risks. In fact, Washington became so paranoid about the spread of smallpox during the early years of the war that he literally became obsessed with inoculating the troops. During the seige of Boston, Washington's concern about the spread of smallpox caused him to issue an order stating that no soldier could enter the city unless he had been infected with smallpox in the past.

Washington's experience with smallpox during his youth was probably the primary determining factor in shaping his opinion on inoculation. During a trip to the Caribbean, Washington was infected with smallpox. In fact, Washington carried a few pockmark scars on his face to remind him of this nearly fatal encounter. His experiences during the French & Indian War had also confirmed to Washington that inoculation was essential for any army. During the war, Washington witnessed several British raids that were unsuccessful, due to the depleted manpower of the British Army.

In his highly acclaimed biography His Excellency, historian Joseph Ellis makes the claim that Washington's decision to inoculate the Continental Army was one of his finest moments:

Washington understood the ravaging implications of a smallpox epidemic within the congested conditions of the encampment, and he regularly quarantined patients that were infected with the virus...And although many educated Americans opposed inoculation, believing that it actually spread the disease, Washington strongly supported it...When historians debate Washington's most consequential decisions as commander in chief, they are almost always arguing about specific battles. A compelling case can be made that his swift response to the smallpox epidemic and to a policy of inoculation was the most important strategic decision of his military career.

In today's modern world we enjoy the benefits of understanding the scientific advancements of modern medicine. In today's world the decision to be inoculated is a "no-brainer" of sorts because of our understanding of infectious diseases. For colonial Americans, however, this was very much a roll of the dice. Fortunately for the Continental Army, Washington was brave enough to take the gamble.

My Dearest Friend: Letters of Abigail and John Adams

Now that the lives of Abigail and John Adams are all the rave on the web, I thought I might mention a book that I read a while back. It is a compilation of the correspondence between John & Abigail Adams, which is edited by historians Joseph Ellis and Margaret Hogan. The book gives some wonderful insight into the personal life of John and Abigail Adams. Their marriage is without question the most publicized and well-known of all the Founding Fathers.

Though a little mundane in parts, I found this book to be a wonderful fountain of information on the Adams Family. Having the insight and commentary of Ellis and Hogan was also very advantageous. Sometimes it is hard to put into context what John and Abigail are talking about, and Ellis is extremely helpful in this regard.

In their critique of this book, the New York Times Book Review had this to say:

From John’s salutation in the first letter — “Miss Adorable” — to the epilogue and his final signature in a letter to his son John Quincy about Abigail’s death — “your Aged and Afflicted Father” — the Adamses’ correspondence gives modern Americans an extraordinarily personal view of our country’s founding. Intermingled with comments on the great events of the day — the Battle of Bunker Hill, the vote for independence, the inauguration of Washington as president — are discussions of daily life, stories of neighbors and relatives, complaints about the high cost of living and laments over such family tragedies as a stillborn daughter and the deaths of parents. Their courtship letters are especially delightful. A few months before their marriage John playfully addressed to Abigail a “Catalogue of your Faults” that included such flaws as neglecting card-playing, being too modest and spending too much time “Reading, Writing and Thinking.” Abigail’s response adopted the same jocular tone: “I was so hardned as to read over most of my Faults with as much pleasure, as an other person would have read their perfections.” Amusingly, a series of letters details a mix-up in September 1776 when some prized tea that John dispatched from Philadelphia to Abigail was misdirected to Samuel Adams’s wife, who then proudly invited Abigail to drink “a very fine dish of Green Tea” she thought had been sent by her “Sweet Heart.” (Abigail ended up with only “about half” the tea, for it had been “very freely used” before the error was corrected.)

Abigail and John wrote unreservedly to each other, despite knowing that their correspondence might be intercepted and read by unfriendly eyes — as indeed some of it was (one such letter, published in 1775 in a loyalist newspaper, is included in this collection). Upon learning that his former friend Jefferson intended to resign as secretary of state in late 1793, John observed, “Instead of being the ardent pursuer of science that some think him, I know he is indolent, and his soul is prisoned with Ambition.” Reporting on Jefferson’s departure from Philadelphia a few days later, he told Abigail, “good riddance of bad ware.” Three years later, Abigail was somewhat more positive: “Tho wrong in Politicks, tho formerly an advocate for Tom Pains Rights of Man and tho frequently mistaken in Men and Measures, I do not think him an insincere or a corruptable Man. My Friendship for him has ever been unshaken.” But her affection for Jefferson did not extend to other Southern “real and haughty Aristocrats”; she contrasted them to the “Real and true Republicans” like her husband, expressing her hope that “their Negroes will fight our Battles.”

In addition to quotidian details, political commentary and descriptions of notable events, readers will find a variety of pithy remarks here. John’s comment on the First Continental Congress, for example, might resonate with viewers of C-Span today: “Every Man in it is a great Man — an orator, a Critick, a statesman and therefore every Man upon every Question must shew his oratory, his Criticism and his Political Abilities.” And feminists might well applaud Abigail’s praise of female rulers: “History informs us that of the few Queens who have reigned for any length of Time as absolute Sovereigns the greatest part of them have been celebrated for excellent Govenours.”

Because Joseph Ellis has been an outspoken critic of social and women’s history, he appears a peculiar choice to write the foreword, despite his many publications on the Revolutionary era. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he treats Abigail here more as her husband’s adjunct and supporter than as her own woman. Neither Ellis nor, for that matter, the editors call the reader’s attention to the ways in which Abigail boldly challenged John: how, when he complained about the poor education of America’s sons, she responded with even more vociferous criticisms of the education offered its daughters; or how, most famously, she admonished him to “Remember the Ladies” in the “New Code of Laws” the nation would have to adopt, because “all Men would be tyrants if they could.”