Blog 4 History

WARNING: This is funny as heck , BUT, Adult Language and other stuff… DO NOT PLAY IF THE CHILDREN ARE AROUND!!!

You’ve been warned.

Brooks Simpson over at Civil Warriors has a great post.

Simpson wrote: One of my evolving credos is “Good information helps lead to good decisions.” Let’s put it this way: “historians” who can’t get their facts straight have no business posing as experts dispensing advice.

In response to a column by Jay Winik where Winik wrote, among other things:

In six weeks alone during the Wilderness Campaign, Lee inflicted some 52,000 casualties upon Grant’s men, nearly as many soldiers as America would lose in the entire Vietnam War. The single battle of Cold Harbor was an unmitigated bloodbath; 7,000 men slaughtered in under an hour, most of them in the first eight minutes, more than the Confederates lost during Gen. George Pickett’s infamous Gettysburg charge.

Post-Inauguration speech reflection. My U.S. Government class enjoyed, for the most part, the Inauguration. I wasn’t sure I wanted to spend the entire class (95 minutes) on the ceremony, but it worked out well. They didn’t get to see all of it, but did see most of it as well as Obama’s speech.

Not surprisingly, it was the first time most (29 out of 32) had ever seen a live Inauguration. During the pre-Inauguration lead up, from 9:15 to 9:45 or so our time, we had several discussions. Among them:

We talked about the unprecedented peaceful transition of power we have had as a country. We talked a little bit about Europe and Asia, my students were able to bring up several coups and bloody revolutions.

My students were amazed by the number of celebrities, I was not but I follow the news more than they do.

Several times students noted the diversity of the crowd and the black faces filled with joy. I have not a black student in any of my classes. This lead nicely into frank discussions about politics and race. What did Obama’s election mean for race relations in our country? Most students were very aware that this was a big moment in our history. A couple of students did express frustrations that it was even a topic, they felt America was not racist to begin with.

Also, what about a Native American President? This was brought up. I was pretty sure we have not had a President elect who was Native American.  Republican Charles Curtis was Vice President to Herbert Hoover during 1929-1933 and was a quarter Indian.

The procession of past Presidents was interesting more for me than the students. Luckily they could identify all of them (they have only been my students for 2 weeks and we’re just entering the 1800s.). Several discussions about Clinton that I had to quell, even though they were too young to really remember much about him. Interesting!

I had several students who thought Bush has been treated unfairly and when he was announced and the heckling in the audience (such as the “na, na, hey, hey, goodbye” or whatever it was and the booing) they thought it tasteless and not appropriate. I don’t blame them. Absolutely classless.

Now our attention turned to President Obama and his family. Several female students thought the Obama’s to be a lovely looking family.

As for the President’s speech, the students felt like they followed it well and for the most part understood what he was talking about. Several were surprised by his references to religion. Comments such as “God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness” stood out for my students.

My students felt Obama’s focus on the economy was important, and that he addressed the terrorist issue and his resolve to continue to defend the country.

We did discuss afterward Obama’s comment, “For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.” As we have been discussing the role of government and how far it needs to go, and how far is too much. We have done so (this past 10 days) from the perspective of: Limited Government, Separation of Power, Checks and Balances, Federalism, and included readings from the Federalists and anti-Federalists. So those discussion and readings were brought up in a few ways. But mainly it broke down party lines, those students with Liberal beleifs and those with Conservative beliefs were most vocal. Not a surprise!

By this time we were out of time and my students had to move on. I reflected on the speech and felt it was fairly good. I especially enjoyed how he ended it, and have it here for those who missed it (here is link for full text):

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of Americas birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned.

The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.

Let it be said by our childrens children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and Gods grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

I was moved by this ending and that he looked back to the Founding Fathers in such a way.

My students and I are watching the presidential inauguration this morning (it’s 10 am here in Colorado) , very exciting and we have had some excellent discussions!

I have been thinking for several days about what to do in honor of the upcoming Presidential Inauguration. Then it occurred to me that with a lot of people harking back to the heady days of Abraham Lincoln, that I should be doing the same thing. So I decided to spend today looking through my set of the “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln” and other books for a Lincoln quote. A quote that if I had the power to make sure President Obama would read and consider, this would be it. After much deliberation I have come to my selection, as quoted from “The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty,” May 1955, p. 7). Now this is not a famous quote I have selected as I immediately dismissed all those as surely Obama has read them many times. So I looked deeper than usual for something I have not seen before (or at least do not remember seeing) and something that hit a nerve with me. Here it is:

That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself…I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will be wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich.

Obviously Lincoln was talking about property rights and as outlined in the Declaration of Independence that each of us has the right to the “pursuit of Happiness.”  It is not a right to be happy, but it is our natural right to be able to pursue happiness. And so in closing, may we all work hard enough and be lucky enough to have that happiness.

May God bless President Obama and may these next four years indeed bring a change we can count on and a change for the better.

UPDATE (1/20): This is abosolutely amazing: BBC World News America has unearthed a fascinating clip of Dr. Martin Luther King speaking to the BBC’s Bob McKenzie in 1964 in which Dr. King predicts an African-American president “in less than 40 years.”

To watch this video click here.

I know, historic event. Lots of people. Requires lots of other things.  The tax payer’s bill is $49 million if I am reading this right.

“Obama’s Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives…”

Oh well! Atleast the money is going to a good cause!

From ABC News:

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn’t stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .
Employees at banks, brokerages and Wall Street firms donated $7 million Barack Obama’s inauguration.

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It’s the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

Read more…

As I have already noted historians have questioned whether Washington actually added the words “So Help Me God” to the Presidential Oath. Here are the arguments:

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states an oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Peter R. Henriques, professor of History, Emeritus, at George Mason University and author of Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington, wrote a nice piece over at the HNN. He correctly notes that “it would have been completely out of character for George Washington to have tampered with the constitutional text in this way.” And I agree, but I think Henriques overplays his hand when he gets into religion and state. He wants religion gone, and gives us a misguided quote from James Madison. “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant violation.” The Founders wanted freedom OF religion not FROM religion. The word “Intermeddle” is key in this quote.

From A Dictionary of the English Language (1824):

To INTERME’DDLE. v. n. {inter and meddle.] To interpose officiously. Bacon.

INTERME’DDLER. n. -. One that interposes officiously; one that thrusts himself into business to which he has no right. Swift.

Additionally, there is indeed no acceptable evidence that Washington did insert those words, just as there is no acceptable evidence that he did not. There are no good recounts of this event that recall his using the phrase. However, as stated, I agree wit Henriques that Washington probably would not have planned on adding those words. If he did, it would have been a spontaneous event that he simply let out. As Henriques points out, “George Washington kissed the Bible on which he took his oath, and he and other government officials immediately attended religious services at Saint Paul’s church following his inaugural address.”

These were religious men, some more than others. In 1789 the U.S. Congresses needed to come up with how officials (such as themselves) would be sworn in.

On 6 April, 1789, the House of Representatives came up with this:

That the form of the oath to be taken by the members of this Houses, as required by the third clause of the sixth article of the Constitution of Government of the United States, be as followeth, to wit: “I, A B a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United States. So help me GOD.” (source)

Eventually the oath was significantly reduced to “I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

So we are left with no evidence that George Washington added the phrase “So Help Me God” to the Presidential Oath. Equally, we have no evidence that he did not utter those words. We know that Americans were religious and one could argue that they were extremely so. We also know that those words, “So Help Me God” were at one time considered to be used in an official oath of government. Did they remove it for specific reasons or for simplicity?

Here’s where I am. I am no expert, but I can think.  Incoming Presidents should indeed have the option to use those words or not. The qualifications for being President do not involve being religious, or being a Christian, as outlined in Article II of the Constitution. The Founders would have thought that to be a case of “intermeddling.”

I hope we never have a day where the President is not religious. I cannot think of a more stressful job and how some spirituality would always be of some help.

From your failed policies to your economic incompetence. I voted for you, supported you, and now am glad to be rid of you. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse. Spend, print money, spend, and print more. Insanity. Our government is out of control and looks to get even more out of control. So in honor of you leaving office, an epitaph…

I want to mention a couple of excellent posts over at J.L. Bell’s “Boston 1775″ blog, which is, frankly, the best if not one of the best history blogs content wise. Bell’s relentless  and thoughtful posts are second to none.

Samuel Adams and Slavery: The Private Man
In this excellent post, Bell points out that for a brief time when he remarried, S. Adam’s new wife owned a servant slave, thus showing that S. Adams was a Founding Father who indeed owned a slave. (It was thought that he was one of the few who had not). However!, S. Adams made it very clear that his wife had to free the servant, and indeed they did. Also, in his private letters it was very clear that in his private life he reflected his political life in its staunch anti-slavery position.

Spreading Skepticism about Presidential Oath Add-On
Here Bell discusses a group that is contesting the upcoming presidential inauguration and has filed a lawsuit concerning the form of the oath of office, in particular the “So help me God” part that has been attributed to George Washington. Bell makes and proves two key points: 1) the Founders never intended a complete separation of church and state;  and 2) that Washington did not start the tradition of adding “So help me God.”

Another book I almost forgot, Arthur Marwick’s The Nature of History. In his chapter “Controversy and History” he writes:

There is a form of historiographical discourse (particularly prevalent in the United States) where the historical writing on any issue is divided up into different schools (Conservative, Progressive, Revisionist, ect) each said to present a distinct view on the issue. To concentrate on the differences of interpretation which historians present is to miss the main purpose of historical study: deepened understanding of the past. (328)

…by bringing competing hypotheses into open  confrontation with each other, by forcing re-examination of methodology and sources, by forcing authors to consider new approaches and new evidence, it ultimately advances the cause of historical understanding. (329)

The different schools of history writing need to be presented, with care, and in doing so they can only help to expand and “deepen” our understanding of history. Indeed. Perhaps I overstepped by saying Zinn should not be used in a serious way, he should be used, but in an objective and fair manner. But that’s the problem, who determines what is objective and what is fair?